The Princeton Seminary Bulletin

G * 47

TOC T‘53 45'

1 nt ns

l-Rl\VtT( ).V

SEMINARY

BULLETIN

J. Gresham Machen: Apologist and Exegete Cullen I K Story

Preaching as Confluence Conrad H. Massa

The Minister’s Theological Responsibility Seward Hiltner

Sermons:

The Door That Closes
Praise for All Things
That Board Meeting at Corinth
Return from Captivity
God’s Affirmative Action
Not by Bread Alone

Paul W. Meyer
Richard A. Baer, Jr.

Carl W. Hensley
Roderic P. Frohman
Daniel L. Migliore
Thomas W. Mann

Bultmann and the Proclamation of the Word Ronald E. Sleeth

A Commencement Address Re-Issued

J. Ritchie Smith

VOLUME II, NUMBER 2

NEW SERIES 1979

PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

James I. McCord
President

John A. Mackay
President Emeritus

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Bryant M. Kirkland, President Harry G. Kuch, Vice-President

Frederick E. Christian, Secretary

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company, New York, N.Y., Treasurer

James F. Anderson

William A. Pollard

Clem E. Bininger

Clifford G. Pollock

Eugene Carson Blake

Woodbury Ransom

James A. Colston

Mrs. William H. Rea

Hugh B. Evans

Lydia M. Sarandan

Mrs. James H. Evans

William H. Scheide

John T. Galloway

Laird H. Simons, Jr.

Mrs. Charles G. Gambrell

Frederick B. Speakman

Francisco O. Garcia-Treto

John M. Templeton

Mrs. Reuel D. Harmon

Daniel C. Thomas

Ms. Alexandra G. Hawkins

William P. Thompson

Johannes R. Krahmer

James M. Tunnell, Jr.

Raymond I. Lindquist

Samuel G. Warr

J. Keith Louden

David B. Watermulder

Henry Luce III

Irving A. West

Dale W. McMillen, Jr.

Charles Wright

Earl F. Palmer

TRUSTEES EMERITI

Ralph M. Wyman

J. Douglas Brown

Miss Eleanor P. Kelly

John G. Buchanan

Weir C. Keder

Allan Maclachlan Frew

John S. Linen

Henry Hird

Luther I. Replogle

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2016 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library

https://archive.org/details/princetonseminar2219prin

The Princeton Seminary Bulletin

VOL. II NEW SERIES 1979 NUMBER 2

CONTENTS

J. Gresham Machen: Apologist and Exegete 91

Preaching as Confluence 104

The Minister’s Theological Responsibility 113

Sermons :

The Door That Closes 121

Praise for All Things 124

That Board Meeting at Corinth 134

Return from Captivity 140

God’s Affirmative Action 144

Not by Bread Alone 150

Bultmann and the Proclamation of the Word 153

A Commencement Address Re-Issued 163

Book Reviews:

What in the World is the World Council of Churches, by
Ans J. Van Der Bent 169

No Offense: Civil Religion and the Protestant Taste, by
J. M. Cuddihy 169

The Center of Christianity, by John Hick 170

S0ren Kierkegaard’s Journals and Papers, ed. and trans. by
H. V. & E. H. Hong 172

Reaping the Whirlwind: A Christian Interpretation of History, by
Langdon Gilkey 173

The Book of Daniel, by L. F. Hartman & A. A. DiLella 175

Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, by
G.A.F. Knight 176

Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times, by
Tom Horner 177

Handbook of Biblical Criticism, by Richard N. Soulen 178

Biblical Backgrounds of the Middle East Conflict, by
G. Harkness & C. F. Kraft 179

Donum Gentilicium: New Testament Studies in Honor of David Daube,
ed. by E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett & W. D. Davies 180

Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, by F. F. Bruce 181

The Debate about the Bible, by Stephen T. Davies 184

Reflections on History and Hope: Yesterday, Today, and
What Next? by R. H. Bainton 186

Calvinist Preaching and Iconoclasm in the Netherlands, 1544-1569,
by P. M. Crew ^7

The Priest in Community: Exploring the Roots of Ministry

Learning Through Liturgy, by G. K. Neville & J. H. Westerhoff, III 187

Magnalia Christi Americana, I & II, by Cotton Mather,
ed. by K. B. Murdock 188

Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform: An Essay on Religion and
Social Change in America, 1607-1977, by W. G. McLoughlin 189

Religion in the Old South, by Donald G. Mathews 190

The Open Secret: Sketches for a Missionary Theology, by
Lesslie Newbigin 191

American Apocalypse: Yankee Protestants and the Civil War,

1860-1869, by J. H. Moorhead 193

The Missionary Enterprise in China and America, ed. by
J. K. Fairbank 194

Architect of Unity: A Biography of Samuel McC. Cavert,
by W. J. Schmidt 195

A Concise History of the Christian World Mission, by
J. H. Kane 197

Celebrating the Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth,
by R. J. Foster 198

Sacred Art in a Secular Century, by Horton & Hugh Davies 199

Unfinished Easter: Sermons on Ministry, by D.H.C. Read 199

Living in a New Age, by Laurence H. Stookey 200

A Princeton Companion, by Alexander Leitch 200

Church Music and the Christian Faith, by Erik Roudey 200

Our Own Hymnbook, by C. H. Spurgeon 202

Henry Ward Beecher: Spokesman for Middle Class America,
by C. E. Clark, Jr. 202

Book Notes 204

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

The Bulletin is published three times annually by the Theological Semi-
nary of the United Presbyterian Church at Princeton, New Jersey 08540.

Each issue is mailed free of charge to all alumni/ae and on an exchange
basis with various institutions.

The intention of the publishers is to channel out to the alumni/ae the
printed texts of lectures, addresses, etc., given on campus and by the faculty
on other campuses. The book reviews are considered to be useful for con-
tinuing education.

Readers are encouraged not to submit manuscripts for possible publication.
Our volunteer editorial staff, comprising full time teaching faculty, cannot
cope with the great quantities of unsolicited materials.

Editor

Donald Macleod
Review Committee

David R. Adams Thomas W. Mann

Elizabeth G. Edwards Daniel L. Migliore

G. Robert Jacks John M. Mulder

George W. Stroup

All correspondence should be adressed to the Editor and accompanied by
a self-addressed, stamped return envelope.

J. Gresham Machen:
Apologist and Exegete

by Cullen I K Story

F orty-one years ago the New Testa-
ment scholar, }. Gresham Machen,
passed on to his reward. His relation-
ship to Princeton Seminary — first as
student, then as instructor and assistant
professor in New Testament — spanned
roughly the first three decades of the
twentieth century. Following his un-
dergraduate work at Johns Hopkins
University and his theological work at
Princeton Seminary, in 1905-06 Machen
took informal post-graduate work at
Marburg (under A. Jiilicker and Wil-
helm Hermann) and at Gottingen
(under E. Schiirer and W. Bousset
among others). He was a close friend
of Francis L. Patton, president of
Princeton Seminary (1902-1913), of
Harris E. Kirk, pastor of the Franklin
Street Church in Baltimore, and of his
seminary colleagues, W. P. Armstrong
and B. B. Warfield. In 1914, at the First
Presbyterian Church of Plainsboro,
New Jersey, he was ordained to the
gospel ministry. Machen’s scholarly life
at Princeton Seminary was significant
but marred by turmoil and tension.
Over the years he became convinced
that Presbyterianism had drifted far
from its biblical and confessional base.
Conflicts with colleagues and church
leaders developed and grew in intensity
until in June of 1929, Machen resigned
from his post of assistant professor at
Princeton Seminary and organized
Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.

A native of Iowa, the Rev. Cullen I K
Story is an alumnus of Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity (M.A.), Dallas T heological Seminary
(Th.M.), and Princeton T heological Seminary
(Ph.D.). After missionary wor\, both na-
tional and overseas, including principal of the
Near East School of Theology in Lebanon
(1954-57), Dr. Story became an instructor
at Princeton and since 1967 has been Director
of the Language Program and associate pro-
fessor in the Department of Biblical Studies.

Furthermore, concerned over what he
viewed as doctrinal disloyalty in the
Board of Foreign Missions of the Pres-
byterian church, in 1933 he took the
initiative in the formation of an Inde-
pendent Board of foreign missions. In
1934 the General Assembly called on all
Presbyterian members of the Independ-
ent Board to sever their relationship
with it. Machen refused. Accordingly,
in 1935 at a trial in Trenton conducted
by the presbytery of New Brunswick,
Machen was suspended from the min-
istry. In 1936 he became the first mod-
erator of a new church, known today
as The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
On January 1, 1937, at the age of fifty-
six, Machen died of pneumonia in a
Roman Catholic hospital in Bismarck,
North Dakota. Such in brief was the
life of one of the most outspoken Pres-
byterian fundamentalists of the twen-
tieth century. An appended bibliog-
raphy will suggest source material on
Machen’s life and influence. The article
that follows aims to understand his
writings and thereby to assess their
apologetic 1 and exegetical 2 worth to the
church and to the scholarly world.

1 Definitions are needed. In the early cen-
turies of the Christian church, an “apologist”
was one who presented a reasonable defense
of the Christian faith to the non-Christian
world. As an example, in the middle of the
second century, Justin Martyr addressed his
First Apology to the Roman emperor and
senate and to all the Roman people. His

92

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

Machen’s works fall neatly into three
chronological periods — the nineteen

tens, the twenties and the thirties.

(A) In the first period, Machen was
a frequent contributor to the Princeton
Theological Review ( PTR ). His book
reviews, thirty-three in number, survey
works on New Testament Greek gram-
mar, commentaries on New Testament
books, and works on other Biblical sub-
jects. In addition to the reviews, Machen
produced eight major articles. One
article, “Christianity and Culture,” was
an address given originally to the Pres-
byterian Ministers’ Association of Phila-
delphia (May 20, 1912). Later, with
minor changes, the same address was
delivered to the students and faculty of
Princeton Seminary at the beginning
of the second century of the Seminary’s

Second Apology was directed simply to “Ro-
mans,” while his Dialogue consists of an ex-
tended conversauon with the Jew, Trypho.
The early apologist, therefore, aimed to meet
false charges made against Christianity and,
at the same time, to set forth a clear account
of Christian faith and life. But, by the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the
word “apologist” — joined now to the term
“apologetics” — had become quite different
in meaning. No longer did the words sug-
gest ad hoc answers to pagan or Jewish out-
siders who were opposed to the Christian
faith. The outsiders were now considered to
be within Christendom. Thus, in Machen
and Warfield, apologetics came to mean a rea-
sonable and comprehensive treatment of “all
the elements which the Calvinists deemed
vital to the Christian faith” (W. D. Living-
stone, The Princeton Apologetic as Exempli-
fied in the Wor\ of Benjamin B. Warfield
and J. Gresham Machen: A Study in Ameri-
can Theology, 1880-1930, unpublished disser-
tation, Yale University, 1948).

2 The terms “exegete” and “exegetical”
mean today what they meant in the first cen-
tury. They refer to interpretation or explana-
tion (cf. Luke 24:35; Acts 15:12). Hence an
exegete “leads out” of the Scriptures the
meaning that is there.

history. The address affirms that Chris-
tians come to terms with culture by con-
secrating the arts and sciences to the
service of God. Christians cannot be
indifferent to any area of culture, for
either culture is false and must be ex-
posed or it is to be made useful in
advancing God’s kingdom. Another
article, “History and Faith,” was
Machen’s inaugural address as assistant
professor of New Testament Literature
and Exegesis at the Seminary. It is a
frank and forthright defense of a super-
natural Jesus whose divine and human
natures are seen by Machen to be inex-
tricably united in one person. Further-
more, Machen affirms that Jesus’ mes-
sianic consciousness is too deeply
imbedded in the sources to be removed
by any critical process. Only a Jesus who
is keenly conscious of his mission can
account for the origin of the Christian
church. A third article, “Recent Criti-
cism of the Book of Acts,” expresses
Machen’s pleasure at the return of
Harnack, Torrey, and other scholars to
the conviction that Luke is the author
of the Luke-Acts work. To Machen, the
change signified a “return to tradition,”
a fresh realization of the uniqueness of
Christ and of the Christian movement.
Five other essays by Machen on Jesus’
birth were incorporated later into a
major monograph. Emerging from the
eight essays is the clear direction of the
writer’s works which were to appear.

(B) The second period of Machen’s
literary work was very productive and
thus becomes important for an under-
standing of his contribution as apologist
and exegete. What follows is a critique
of two of his three major scholarly
works 3 and one of his more popular

3 The third scholarly work — not treated
here — is his New Testament Gree\ for Be-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

93

works, all of which appeared in the
nineteen twenties.

(i) Machen’s book on Paul, The
Origin of Paul’s Religion, consists of
the James Sprunt lectures delivered at
Union Theological Seminary in Vir-
ginia. The book builds a strong defense
for the supernatural nature of Paul’s
religion. The writer is an apologist —
par excellence — as he steers the reader
through a labyrinth of reconstructions
of Paul and Paulinism. He critiques
von Harnack’s claim that there were
sharp differences between Paul and the
original disciples. He questions Wrede’s
conviction that Paul was influenced
strongly by Jewish apocalyptic views
and that Christ’s humanity, according
to Paul, was something strange to Jesus.
He opposes Bousset’s idea that Paulin-
ism is a religion of redemption derived
from pagan religion, not from the
historical Jesus. * * * 4 Machen then presents
a history of Paul’s life from his early
years to the triumph of Gentile free-
dom. There is a strong supernaturalism
in Paul, says Machen, expressed in a
simple yet significant axiom, i.e. the
religion of Paul was based on what
Christ had done for him and continued
to do through him. There is in Paul
no distinction between an historical
Jesus and a heavenly Christ, no adop-

ginners, a grammar that continues to be used

in numerous colleges, universities, and semi-

naries. Greek scholar as he was, if Machen
were with us today, he would credit Prince-
ton Seminary with at least one “plus item”:
the Greek placement examination which he
with W. P. Armstrong initiated at the Semi-
nary, is still in operation.

4 Machen’s prediction of the future impact
of Bousset’s work was more prophetic than
Machen realized, for, fifty-seven years after
the first edition of the work in German
(1913), the book was deemed worthy of
translation into English (1970).

tionist Christology by which Christ
grew gradually into divinity, no \enosis
by which he relinquished his higher
nature so that his life and teaching on
earth are matters of indifference. “He
[Paul] regarded Christ as Lord and
Master, and he identified that Christ
fully with the Jesus who lived but a few
years before” (p. 118). In essence, the
book is both Machen’s answer to von
Harnack, Wrede and Bousset, and also
his own exegesis of Paulinism.

But now we must ask, (a) How en-
during is Machen’s apology? (b) How
comprehensive and careful is his exe-
gesis of Paulinism?

The answer to the first question is
quite positive; the relationship of Paul
to Jesus, to Judaism (“normative” or
apocalyptic), and to the pagan world,
continues to occupy scholars today. R.
Bultmann, for example, claims to find
in Paul a gnostic substratum of the
myth of the redeemed redeemer but,
like Machen, he takes exception to
Bousset’s conviction that Paul was be-
holden to the myths of the pagan mys-
tery cults. W. D. Davies senses that
rabbinic Judaism and the special con-
tribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls have
done much to establish the Jewish back-
ground of Paul’s writings. Like Machen
but contrary to both Bousset and
Wrede, J. Munck finds a firm historical
base for Paul’s call in the conversion
accounts in Acts. And, like Machen
also, Munck affirms a strong and ami-
cable relationship between Paul and the
Jerusalem church. And though in a
different vein from Wrede, Munck has
stressed Wrede’s end-time emphasis in
Paul’s theology, sensing that Paul him-
self is an eschatological figure entrusted
with an eschatological message. And
finally, G. Bornkamm, unlike Machen,
questions the book of Acts as an histori-

94

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

cal source, and proceeds to reconstruct
the apostle’s life and ministry from his
letters alone. And yet Bornkamm, like
Machen, compares favorably the body
of ideas found in Paul with the teach-
ing of Jesus. In brief, it can be said that
the apology which Machen presented
with consummate skill over fifty years
ago, points to the live issues in Pauline
scholarship today.

But now for the second question:
How careful in detail and comprehen-
sive in scope is Machen's exegetical
work? A positive answer appears
doubtful. In the first place, Machen’s
treatment of the three accounts in Acts
of Paul’s conversion is quite meager,
especially when compared, for example,
with the careful and thorough treat-
ment by J. Munck ( Paul and the Sal-
vation of Mankind). Moreover, in his
reaction to Wrede, Machen failed to
take seriously possible background ma-
terial for Pauline eschatology found in
First Enoch and in The Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs. At least, in all
honesty, the question ought to be raised
as to whether there were ways in which
the Messiah of the Jewish apocalypses
— modified, of course, by Paul’s knowl-
edge of the exalted Christ through
revelation and by his acquaintance with
the historical Jesus through the dis-
ciples — did affect Paul’s presentation of
Christ. Furthermore, in his reaction to
Bousset, Machen dismissed all too
quickly Bousset’s exegesis of the Pauline
terms “in Christ” or “in the Lord.”
Actually, Bousset’s treatment of the
terms is a mine of information (about
eighteen pages long), distinguished
not only bv a careful discussion of the
texts in Paul — both their individual and
corporate significance — but by a discus-
sion of various close parallels in pagan
literature. Again, in a section devoted

to alleged parallels to the Christian
sacraments found in the mystery re-
ligions, while Machen reveals a close
acquaintance with the sacramental hy-
potheses of the history-of-religions-
school of his day, he nonetheless fails to
give a careful exposition of Pauline
texts by which the same hypotheses may
be answered. Finally, on the issue of
Paul’s relationship to Jesus, Machen
posed the easy question : Do the oc-
casional references found in Paul’s
writings to the kingdom of God present
the same meaning which it has in Jesus’
teaching? But the hard question is:
Why is there the strange shift in terms,
i.e. from the “kingdom of God” (syn-
optic gospels) to the “church” (Paul) ?
The question calls for exegetical work
which is missing from Machen’s mono-
graph.

The pressing issue which Machen’s
book leaves behind is simply this: Can
a defense of the faith bypass the exposi-
tion thereof without losing what is
vital in the process? Is this what Caspar
Wistar Hodge meant as he expressed
his regret at the announcement of
Machen’s election (not confirmed by
the General Assembly) to the Stuart
Professorship of Apologetics and Chris-
tian Ethics at Princeton Seminary? “To
‘open the Scripture,’ ” said Hodge, “to
expound its truths, I consider the high-
est of all tasks, and even of greater
‘apologetic’ value in the long run than
its ‘defense.’ ” 5

(2) Machen’s popular book What Is
Faith?, issued in 1925, is a collection of
lectures and articles which appeared in
earlier years. The work reads easily,
proceeding from a discussion of the
object of faith, God and Christ, to faith

5 Quoted by Ned B. Stonehouse, /. Gresh-
am Machen — A Biographical Memoir, p. 387.

THE PRINCET ON SEMINARY BULLETIN

95

and its relation to human needs, faith
seen in relation to the gospel and salva-
tion, and finally, faith viewed in rela-
tion to works and hope.

Faith, says Machen, involves the ac-
ceptance of propositions about God (pp.
47ff). Therefore, faith is theistic, i.e. it
is based on the knowledge of a God
who created the world, who though
immanent in the world is distinct from,
and sovereign over, all that he has
made. Knowledge of God as the basis
of faith is attained in three ways —
through the works of nature, through
conscience, and peculiarly, through the
Bible. Ultimately, faith stakes its claim
on God’s act in Christ. Because sin is
the great barrier between God and the
individual, Christ’s redeeming work
alone makes it possible for a sinful per-
son to become a child of God. Christ
must be seen first as Savior, then as
example: first “trust in his redeeming
blood,” then “try his works to do.”

Faith, however, is not merely con-
cerned with Christ as a sufficient Savior,
but it focuses on individual needs, e.g.,
the consciousness of sin and human
rebellion against God’s law. No purely
intellectual approach to Christianity
will satisfy. The moral uniqueness of
Jesus and the miracle of his resurrection
form the foundation of the Christian
church. Neither the beauty nor idealism
of Christianity nor the desire for com-
panionship can compensate for a thor-
ough-going conviction of human sin.
Companionship with Jesus, for exam-
ple, emerges out of a deep contrition
(Luke 5:8). Only a new and powerful
proclamation of the law can cause one
to seek grace through faith. Faith saves
us and this means that God saves us
through his grace. To be justified sug-
gests not a reward that is earned but a
gift that is received.

Moreover, says Machen, the begin-
ning of the Christian life is not an
achievement but an experience which is
followed by a battle against sin. But
how can the battle be won? In ourselves
we are weak, says the author, and we
will surely fail; we can and must de-
pend wholly on the power of the Spirit.

Such, in brief, is the essence of one
of Machen’s more popular books. Its
avowed aim is to reach the common
professing Christian. Its strength lies
in its simple and direct appeal. Machen’s
style resembles the Stoic diatribe in that
he anticipates the questions of his op-
ponents and then proceeds to answer
them in a clear and concise fashion. He
offers propositions for faith to grasp.
To exegete, says Machen, means to de-
scribe the truth of the Bible in which
faith finds its anchor. Precisely at this
point, I think, we find the first basic
methodological weakness of Machen’s
approach. Exegesis does indeed mean
to describe what is there. Exegesis is
historically conditioned. Thus, for ex-
ample, Pauline letters were occasioned
by circumstances in time and place.
Faith, however, means far more than
to affirm propositions about what is
there in the Bible. Paul’s essay on food
offered to idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1), for
example, is directed to an historical
situation at Corinth (A.D. 57) which
no longer exists. The faithful exegete
senses that Paul’s treatment has no
immediate application or meaning for
the church today. One may claim that
Paul’s essay needs to be “updated” or
“explicated,” or “applied” to a vast
array of problems which arise in the
contemporary church. To venture, how-
ever, upon an exegetical “application”
is quite different from an acceptance of
propositional truth. A more difficult
hermeneutical problem faces us in that

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

96

the early apostolic church (and, for that
matter, the early church in America)
gave passive assent to slavery. On the
credit side, the Ephesian and Colossian
letters (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1) imply
that the gospel brings with it an amel-
ioration of the condition of slaves,
while a few texts affirm that the new
life in Christ breaks down rigid social
barriers (e.g. Gal 3:26-29; Philem 16).
And yet, apparently, Paul did not urge
the freedom of slaves (1 Cor 7:21-22);
Ignatius of Antioch, ca. A.D. 107, cer-
tainly did not (Ign to Polycarp 4:3).
Thus to claim with Machen that faith
gives assent to propositions about what
is there in the Bible is hardly a viable
position. This does not mean that exe-
gesis is concerned with only a part of
the Bible, for the entire Bible comes
down to us as the living word of God.
In interpreting Scripture, says Schlatter,
“We are confronted not only with the
past but also with the present, not only
with what happened inside other people
but also with what is happening inside
ourselves.” 6 Preeminently the church
needs to give heed to its history, to
hearken to the past, to yield itself to the
givenness of its heritage, since it is
through its heritage that the church is
formed and re-formed today. On the
other hand, exegesis will surely go awry
if it is solely concerned with connec-
tions between past and present. To do
this, says Schlatter, means that we will
observe the past only so long as our
own issues and interest coincide with
the object. That would mean that our
perception would be “directed exclu-
sively towards what we can at once
make our own.” 7

6 “The Nature of New Testament Theol-
ogy,” Studies in Biblical Theology, vol. 25,
p. 1 18.

7 Ibid., p. 127.

Faith means, for example, that we can
yield ourselves to the letter of faith
(Galatians) in its own given situation.
Our concern in the letter is surely not
with the locale of the churches —
whether in north Galatia or in the
south — but with the nature of the teach-
ing which threatened to undo the work
which Paul had started. As we listen to
the letter directed to the first century
churches in Galatia, we are driven on
in history to the meaning which it had
in the early sixteenth century, and fi-
nally, to our own desperate need for
the letter in the twentieth century. For,
quite appropriately, we bring our own
situation and our own need today to
the letter in order to listen to its mes-
sage. In the first century, the letter pro-
claimed a standing before God through
faith alone apart from the Jewish law.
In the sixteenth century, with his watch-
word sola fide , Luther exegeted Gala-
tians to a people weighed down with
laws imposed upon them by their reli-
gious leaders. In the twentieth century,
faith in terms of the Galatian letter is
to be proclaimed not to a church that is
burdened by the Jewish law nor by its
own laws, but to a church that all too
easily professes its faith in the gospel
only to insulate itself from involvement
in a genuine gospel ministry to the
spiritual and social needs of society.
How often is the church today embar-
rassed as it witnesses society wrestling
with problems of human rights and
justice that the church ought to have
ministered to long before. Moreover,
faith in terms of the Galatian letter
meets a church today whose confidence
in its own institutional life particularly,
as well as in government and in the
political process generally, has been
severely shaken. “If the foundations are
destroyed, what has a righteous one ac-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

97

complished?” (the literal Hebrew of
Psalm 11:3). The temptation will be
for the church to succumb to a gospel
tailored to the individual alone, evidenc-
ing little or no social concern — a mes-
sage of morality and self-reliance show-
ing little or no concept of service in
and through the body of Christ. In the
face of this temptation, the message of
Galatians for today — “by faith alone” —
can peal forth with a clear sound, even
clearer perhaps than when it first went
forth to the Galatian churches. In brief,
the expositor of faith can make no
quick and easy transition from the first
century to the twentieth. Inevitably, one
must ask how the reality of the past is
related to the givenness of the present,
a question which I feel Machen neither
asked nor answered in his monograph
on faith.

And, if Machen errs on the side of
propositional exegesis, there is another
methodological weakness in his ap-
proach, i.e. a narrowness of interest.
The point becomes clear as his essay is
compared to a work of his contempo-
rary, A. Schlatter, 8 a work available to
Machen. Schlatter’s book embraces the
entire New Testament witness, show-
ing an exegetical concern for the con-
tribution of each part to the meaning
of faith. At the close he includes studies
of the word “faith” itself — a herald of
The Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament , which very work was dedi-
cated to Schlatter. Accordingly, the
question, “What is faith?” needs to
face important exegetical issues such
as: the relation of faith to repentance
(the synoptics), faith as both a decisive
and growing commitment (the Fourth
Gospel), faith as both a standing before
God and a style of life (the letters) in-

8 Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, Zweite
Bearbeitung, 1896.

eluding the significant “gift of faith”
to some — not to all — in the church (1
Cor 12:9), the exploits of faith (He-
brews), and the new emphasis in the
Pastorals on the deposit of faith.
Machen’s main exegetical issue in his
popular exposition of faith is to rec-
oncile the assumed conflict between
Paul and James — quite a minor item
when compared to the basic New Testa-
ment concerns. Thus, notwithstanding
Machen’s strong apologetic fervor and
total commitment to the Biblical wit-
ness, one senses that his book What Is
Faith? is lacking in exegetical depth.

(3) Machen’s monograph, The Vir-
gin Birth of Christ ( VBC ), appeared
shortly after the organization of West-
minster Seminary. As hinted at earlier,
the work is an expansion of five sepa-
rate articles by Machen that appeared
in the Princeton Theological Review.
The substance of the book was delivered
to students at Columbia Theological
Seminary in Decatur, Georgia as the
Thomas Smyth Lectures (spring of
1927). 9

VBC is a very thorough work, wide-
ranging in scope and careful in detail,
a work which the author himself called
his opus magnum. Machen is firmly
committed to the virgin birth as a tenet
of faith, yet he attempts to be open to
opposing views and to treat opponents
with fairness and honesty. Strangely
enough, he first discusses belief in the
virgin birth in the second Christian
century. The opening chapter is, in es-
sence, a reproduction of his article in
PTR X (1912), pp. 529-580. Machen
is adept in his treatment of the early
fathers. Texts in the letters of Ignatius,

9 The book itself was not actually published
until 1930. It rightly belongs, however, to
the second period of Machen’s literary ac-
tivity.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

98

Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, Ori-
gen’s treatise Against Celsus, and Je-
rome’s Commentary on Matthew are
discussed in detail, showing that belief
of the church in the virgin birth ex-
tends back into the early years of the
second century, and that denials of the
virgin birth are based much more prob-
ably on dogmatic presuppositions than
on genuine historical tradition. In the
central part of his work, Machen gives
primary attention to the hymns in Luke
1-2 ( VBC , chapters 2-6). He concludes
that the hymns are no artificial produc-
tion of the Gentile Luke, but are actual-
ly to be traced back to Zacharias and
Mary, their original composition being
in Hebrew or Aramaic. Such a conclu-
sion, says Machen, explains the Old
Testament spirit and color and the He-
brew parallelism of strophes such as
the hymns reveal.

A minor section in VBC is devoted
to Matthew’s birth narrative (chapter 7
of VBC), followed by a consideration
of the relation of the nativity accounts
to each other, to secular history, and to
the rest of the New Testament (VBC,
chapters 8-1 1). Finally, the writer con-
siders alternative theories about Jesus’
birth (chapters 12-14). A conclusion
follows (chapter 15).

That VBC is a meticulous work is
seen clearly in the way Machen handles
patristic evidence, in his textual com-
mentary on Luke 1-2, and in his discus-
sion of textual problems (e.g. Luke
2:22, “their cleansing,” VBC, pp. 70-
74; Luke 2:5, “Mary his betrothed,”
VBC, pp. 123-126; the variant readings
of Matt 1:16, VBC, pp. 176-187). Sim-
ilar care is shown in his treatment of
interpolation theories, which he finds
void of any textual basis (e.g. Luke
1 :34'35, VBC, chapter VI). Throughout
his work, Machen is the apologist, acute-

ly conscious of the serious questions
which scholars of his day and earlier
have raised over the credibility of the
virgin birth. As apologist, Machen is
effective. It is doubtful, for example, if
Boslooper in his recent work 10 has add-
ed any new support to the mythical
view of Jesus’ birth which Machen so
carefully weighed and found wanting.
Still the question needs to be raised as
to whether Machen, the apologist for
the virgin birth, is also the exegete
thereof. His painstaking research lays
bare the facts, but does he exegete its
meaning? What place, for example,
does the virgin birth occupy in the
Luke- Acts volumes? The answer to the
last question must surely take account
of the prefaces to Luke (1:1-4) and to
Acts (1:1-5). Machen has only a short
note on Acts 1, and his few brief ref-
erences to the preface of Luke have to
do only with its skillful literary com-
position and with its style and struc-
ture in contrast with the birth and in-
fancy narrative which follows. The
theological importance of the Lukan
preface, however, can hardly be over-
estimated. Luke alludes to “the events
which have been brought to full frui-
tion among us.” The perfect tense com-
bines with the passive voice (i.e. “have
been brought to full fruition”) to indi-
cate that God is at work on the scene
of human history to bring to fulfil-
ment events of eternal worth. 11 The
“events” are the births of John and of
Jesus, the ministry of Jesus (Luke
4:i6ff), his death and resurrection
(Luke 24:25-27, 44, 46-47), and the com-
ing of the Holy Spirit and the forma-

10 Thomas Boslooper, The Virgin Birth
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962).

11 See, e.g., O. A. Piper, “The Purpose of
Luke,” Union Seminary Review 57 (Nov.
1945), p. 16.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

99

tion of a new people of God (Acts 2).
The fact that at the beginning of
Luke’s gospel, God acts in a very mirac-
ulous way not merely in one birth but
in two, points the way to an under-
standing of the gospel. 12 That is to say,
the work of the Holy Spirit in the
births of John and Jesus was prepara-
tory not merely to the Spirit’s work in
Jesus’ ministry (Luke 4:17-21) but to
the gift of the same Spirit from the
risen Lord, making possible another
miraculous birth — the birth of the
church (Acts 2). 13

As for Machen’s brief chapter on
“The Narrative in Matthew,” over half
of the space is devoted to a discussion
of the text of Matt 1:16 with only minor
attention given to the genealogy of
1 :i-i6 and even less to the content of
Matt 2. The brief attention which
Machen does give to Matt 1:1-16 aims
merely to harmonize the genealogical
table of Matthew with the table of
Luke, a task that fairly bristles with
problems which I doubt if Machen has
solved. Once again, it is the meaning
of Matthew’s account that Machen
overlooks. For example, why does Mat-
thew “rearrange” his genealogy into
three equal divisions? Is it to indicate
that Jesus’ birth was not by chance but
integral to the divine plan, or is it to
show that it has some connection with
Jewish apocalyptic thinking concerning
events inscribed beforehand in the
heavenly books? 14 Or does the geneal-
ogy suggest the faithfulness of God to-
ward his people through thick and thin,
both when they are strong under David
as well as when they are wrenched

12 Cf. ibid., p. 20.

13 Cf. J. Danielou, The Infancy Narratives ,
trans. R. Sheed (New York: Herder and
Herder, 1968), p. 70.

14 Ibid., p. 15.

from their homeland to become helpless
exiles in Babylon, destined later to be-
come exploited subjects of a cruel Edom-
ite king, i.e. Herod? In addition, the
strange purpose in Matthew’s inclusion
of four women in his genealogy, three
of whom are immoral and one a for-
eigner from Moab, calls for explana-
tion. Is the presence of the women a
harbinger of God’s grace (cf. the early
patristic explanation) ? or does their
presence in the genealogy emphasize
the fact that God’s plan will be fulfilled
whatever happens? 15 Or are they men-
tioned by way of contrast to that other
woman in Matthew 1, the one highly
favored of God, the virgin Mary?
Again, one may ask, do the opening
and closing verses of the genealogical
table (Matt 1:1, 16) indicate that, for
the writer, Jesus Christ is both the
alpha and omega of Jewish history?
And, similar to the opening verses of
John’s gospel on the incarnation (John
1:1, 14; cf. Gen 1:1), does Matthew
show in his opening verses (Matt 1 :i,
16, 18, 20) that the birth of Jesus
through the virgin Mary means essen-
tially the beginning of a new humanity
engendered by the Holy Spirit, as
Danielou suggests? 16 Danielou’s sug-
gestion needs to be taken seriously as
the Greek text of Matt 1 :i is compared
with the LXX of Gen 2:4 and 5:1. One
should also compare the work of the
Holy Spirit according to both Gen 1 :2
and Matt 1:18, 20. And, there is still
another question that the exegete of
Matthew’s account of the virgin birth
must face, i.e. how are we to interpret
Matthew’s amazing selection of Old
Testament texts, all of which find their
fulfillment — according to Matthew — in

15 Ibid., p. 17.

16 Ibid., p. 12k

100

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

Jesus’ birth? If exegesis is concerned
with context — and it is — Machen’s
scholarly monograph on the virgin
birth leaves much to be desired.

(C) The third period of Machen’s
literary work — the thirties — marks the
twilight of his life. Quite obviously, the
formation and operation of Westmin-
ster Seminary as well as continued con-
troversy with the Presbyterian church
occupied Machen’s time and sapped his
energy. Added to these problems were
the internal divisions that arose in both
the Independent Board and the new
Seminary. Understandably, Stonehouse
has written, “It is hardly a wonder that
Machen was virtually crushed under
the burden of the anxieties and labors
that were present day and night during
the last months of his life.” 17 Under-
standably, also, Machen’s literary activ-
ity in the thirties subsided. Apart from
articles in The Presbyterian Guardian ,
a church paper which Machen person-
ally launched in October of 1935, his
literary work is largely confined to two
volumes containing addresses given
originally during 1935-36 over radio
station WIP in Philadelphia. The two
volumes are The Christian Faith in the
Modern World and The Christian
View of Man. A critique of the former
volume follows.

The Christian Faith in the Modern
World is a series of essays on Christian
doctrine. Machen begins with the ques-
tion, “How may God be known?” —
a question which takes him to the most
important revelation of God, i.e. the
Bible. From the Bible the author pro-
ceeds to discuss God the creator, the
triune God, the deity of Christ, Jesus’
testimony to himself, his resurrection,
and Paul’s witness to him, concluding

17 Stonehouse, p. 505.

with a final chapter on the Holy Spirit.
The essays thereby show a distinct
unity. The writer attempts to speak to
ordinary people enmeshed in the crises
of the mid-thirties — tyranny in Russia,
the arms race in Germany and Italy,
and the threat to civil and religious lib-
erty which Machen sensed existing in
the United States. It is clear, however,
that the “crises” which Machen men-
tions in his introduction play little if
any part in his doctrinal treatment.
What then does Machen say in the
closing years of his life, and, once again,
how are we to evaluate his role as apol-
ogist and exegete of the Christian faith?

He claims quite forthrightly that
Christian faith in the Bible, in God,
and in Christ stands firm amid the
onslaught of unbelief. The Bible is
verbally inspired; God the creator is
revealed to us in three persons; Jesus
is the Son of God, the Lord, and hence
the object of faith; and the witness of
the gospels to the supernatural Christ
is corroborated by the testimony of the
apostle Paul. Echoes of Machen’s liter-
ary activity of the nineteen twenties
meet the reader of each essay on every
page. Machen presents the Christian
faith simply and categorically in order
to show that Christian convictions are
essential to Christian living. It makes
a great deal of difference, he says, what
a person believes. To illustrate, he ap-
peals to Paul Bourget’s novel, The
Disciple. Bourget describes the peace-
ful routine life of an inoffensive philos-
opher who “wouldn’t hurt a fly,” who
welcomes students and scholars to his
humble domicile several times a week
for instruction. The philosopher’s quiet
life, however, is unexpectedly shattered.
He is summoned to a criminal inquest
at which one of his former pupils, a
brilliant and enthusiastic disciple, is

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

ior

accused of murder. Now in prison, the
disciple writes an autobiography for his
master to see, a tragic story of how the
liberating doctrines of the philosopher’s
teaching culminated in the awesome
crime which the disciple committed. So
it is, said Machen, with the doctrines of
Modernism and Liberalism. They have
their own tragic issues in both public
and private life in that civil and reli-
gious liberty are now threatened. “This
notion that doctrine is unimportant and
that life comes first, is one of the most
devilish errors that are to be found in
the whole of Satan’s arsenal” (p. 97).
Throughout the volume Machen con-
centrates on Christian doctrine with, at
best, a minor emphasis on Christian
living.

Now, however, I raise the question as
to whether Machen has produced any-
thing more than a bare skeleton of
Christian doctrine which needs the flesh
and blood of exegesis. Machen empha-
sizes historical facticity but the New
Testament reveals the twin emphases
of the historical Jesus and the dynamic
of the Spirit. That is to say, facts will
remain sterile and inert unless some-
how they are interrelated and inter-
preted by the Holy Spirit. Machen’s
treatment tends to be little more than
an expanded Apostles’ Creed, and he is
often pessimistic as to whether his
hearers and readers can truthfully con-
fess their faith in the creed. “I want
not only to clear away misconceptions
from your minds, as to what we be-
lieve, but I want to win some of you”
(p. 36). “You say . . . how could God
determine the very words that these
men wrote . . . ? Well, my friend, I
will tell you how” (pp. 53^) . “When
you say that the Bible is a true guide in
religion, but that you do not care
whether it is a true guide when it deals

with history or with science, I should
just like to ask you one question” (p.
55). “Well, my friend, you have turned
to the Sermon on the Mount. I did not
choose it. You chose it. It is your fav-
orite passage . . . All right, then; we
are going to . . . examine the Sermon on
the Mount for ourselves. What happens
to us when we do that? I will tell you
very plainly” (p. 162). “You say, my
friend, that you have never seen a man
who rose from the dead . . . ? Quite
right. Neither have I . . . But what of
it?” (p. 214).

The above quotations are merely a
sampling of Machen’s characteristic
rhetorical method. If society and the
church in society were sick unto death
— and for Machen they were — one is
inclined to ask somewhat whimsically
whether Machen’s “bedside manner”
could in any way effect an improve-
ment in the patient’s condition.

But beyond the skeletal nature of the
book and its “chip-on-the-shoulder”
style, what troubles me most is Machen’s
lack of complete candor in explaining
the doctrines he has chosen to treat.
Lack of candor — what a strange thing
to say about Machen! But I mention
two emphases by way of example. First,
with regard to Jesus’ resurrection,
Machen is quite insistent that the resur-
rection appearances occurred initially
not in Galilee but in Jerusalem. That
is to say, he takes his stance in the
primitive Jerusalem tradition held by
Paul (cf. also John and Luke), but he
fails to consider the Galilean tradition
found in Mark and Matthew. The
point at issue is not the resurrection
per si f, nor even the clear witness given
in the New Testament to appearances
of the risen Jesus. The issue is that for
Machen to argue vigorously in support
of Paul’s testimony in 1 Cor 15 and to

102

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

fail to take seriously Mark 16 and Matt.
28, is to be less than honest with the
sources and to leave the thoughtful
reader with disturbing questions con-
cerning the consistency of the Biblical
material. A second emphasis pertains to
Machen’s treatment of the source criti-
cism of the gospels. It is doubtful if
Machen ever came to terms with the
synoptic research of his day. In his ear-
lier writings as well as in the radio es-
says, the reader encounters the phrase,
“the sources supposed rightly or wrong-
ly to underlie the Synoptic Gospels.”
One might expect Machen to define
“rightly or wrongly” and to bring the
synoptic problem into focus. Let us as-
sume that he did deal with this prob-
lem in his teaching at Princeton and
Westminster; but neither his scholarly
nor his popular works reveal that he
even tried to resolve the problem. In-
stead, he actually affirms that the famous
“two-document” theory has become the
basis for the account of a purely hu-
man Jesus who worked no miracles but
simply taught by life and word the
Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of
man. Machen thereby reduced source-
criticism to a straw man and failed to
deal openly and honestly with serious
research. To claim that the gospel of
Mark and an unknown document “Q”
are the two main sources that lie be-
hind the first three gospels, in no way
of itself marks a liberal approach to the
gospels. It reveals rather an effort to
understand the obvious relationships
that exist between the three accounts.
Evangelicals (belatedly) as well as lib-
erals have accepted literary criticism as
both a helpful and an indispensable tool
for an understanding of the Synoptics.
Machen knew this. He appreciated, for
example, the evangelical position of
James Denney; and yet Denney was

firm in his support of the two-document
theory. 18 Briefly, Christian Faith in the
Modern World impresses me as the
work of a tired, harassed man, strong
in a simplistic defensive posture, but
weak in exegetical prowess.

Conclusion. The above critique of
Machen’s literary works lays no claim
to completeness. 19 It deals not with
Machen’s personal, academic, or eccle-
siastical life 20 but with what he wrote.
Yet, I have been impressed by two de-

18 See, e.g. J. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel
— Christianity justified in the mind of Christ
(New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son,
1909), pp. 156-177; and cf. Christian Faith in
the Modern World, p. 155.

19 It is doubtful, however, whether a con-
sideration of Machen’s other popular works
will alter the basic criuque given in this
essay. Compare Machen’s Christianity and
Liberalism (New York: Macmillan, 1923);
The Christian View of Man (New York:
Macmillan, 1937), God Transcendent and
other Selected Sermons, ed. Ned Stonehouse
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), and What
is Christianity? And Other Addresses, ed.
Ned Stonehouse (1951). To complete this
survey, two final popular productions of
Machen should be mentioned; (1) Sunday
School lessons which Machen wrote for the
Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sab-
bath School Work. Originally published in
1916, the lessons have been recently edited
and re-issued under the title, The New Testa-
ment, An Introduction to its Literature and
History, ed. W. John Cook (Glasgow: R.
MacLehose & Co. Ltd., 1976). (2) Expository
notes on Galatians 1:1-3:14 which appeared
originally in the early Christianity Today
(from Jan. 1931 to Feb. 1933) but which
were edited and published in 1977 by John
H. Skilton under the title, Machen’s Notes
on Galatians (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co.). The notes em-
phasize historical exegesis and suggest that
the apostasy in the Galatian churches is re-
flected — so says Machen — in the apostasy in
the Presbyterian church.

20 1 refer the reader to C. Allyn Russell’s
penetrating article, “J- Gresham Machen,
Scholarly Fundamentalist” in The Journal of
Presbyterian History 51 (1973), 40-69.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

103

scriptions of his life which Ned Stone-
house has given. At the beginning of his
biography, Stonehouse emphasizes
Machen’s forthright courage, describing
him as Mr. Valiant-for-Truth (from
Pilgrim’s Progress). Later, however, the
biographer reflects quite honestly on
the reason why outstanding men such
as Craig, Allis, and Macartney parted
company with Machen in the closing
years of his life. The reason, says Stone-
house, was Machen’s bent to precipitous
action — a failure to communicate with
his colleagues, thereby allowing them to
share fully in his convictions and hence
possibly to influence or change his pur-
pose or plan of action. Stonehouse’s
observations are helpful in bringing
this critique to a close. Machen’s schol-
arly works, The Origin of Paul’s Reli-
gion and The Virgin Birth of Christ ,
reveal a writer who is “Mr. Valiant-for-
Truth.” Machen is the apologist who
marshals his arguments carefully as he
contends vigorously that Paul’s religion
is indeed based on a supernatural Christ
and that this Christ was indeed born of
the virgin Mary. Machen is an apologist
and a courageous one at that. And for
this very reason I am drawn to him.
Yet I am drawn only partway, for, to
defend the faith does not inevitably
mean to interpret the faith. Stonehouse
writes that Machen was an exegete and
that in his classroom the letter to the
Galatians, for example, became “alive
and relevant.” 21 But this is precisely

what I do not see in Machen’s extant
works, and thus I feel short-changed.
Allyn Russell claims that Machen was
more successful as an apologist than as
an ecclesiastical politician. To this claim
I would add that he was more success-
ful as an apologist than as an exegete.
For what Stonehouse has said about
Machen’s lack of a close relationship
with trusted colleagues may be said
about his literary relationship with his
readers. In order for his readers — stu-
dent and scholar alike — to share fully
in his faith in the Scriptures, Machen
needed to communicate with them by
interpreting those Scriptures to them
through the scholarly acumen and
Christian devotion with which he was
so admirably equipped.

Bibliography

Ned B. Stonehouse, /. Gresham
Machen A Biographical Memoir
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publish-
ing Company, 1954).

C. Allyn Russell, “J. Gresham Machen,
Scholarly Fundamentalist,” The Jour-
nal of Presbyterian History, 51 (1973),
40-69.

W. D. Livingstone, The Princeton
Apologetic as Exemplified in the
Wor\ of Benjamin B. Warfield and
J. Gresham Machen : A Study in
American Theology, 1880-1930, un-
published dissertation, Yale Univer-
sity, 1948.

21 Stonehouse, p. 171.

T-V/=*a h i n cr qq Pnnflnpnrp A native of Brooklyn, N.Y., the Rev. Con-

rreaciling as \^OnilUCllCC ra j yj Massa was called to Princeton in the

autumn of igy8 as Director of Field Educa-
by CoNRAD H. Massa tion, Professor of Preaching and Worship,

and Dean-elect. An alumnus of Columbia
University (A.B.), Princeton Theological
Seminary (M.Div., Th.M., and Ph.D.), Dr.
Massa has served churches in East Orange
and Newark N.f., and Rochester, N.Y., where
for twelve years he was minister of the Third
Presbyterian Church.

Inaugural Address, December 6, 1978

G eorge Pepper, in his Lyman Beech-
er Lectures, said, “To essay lectures
upon preaching is an act of courage. To
believe that God may find use for them
is an act of faith.” 1 An Inaugural Lec-
ture provides the opportunity for one
to identify some basic concerns in the
field of inquiry and also to reflect criti-
cally on certain present practices. This
effort to do such may demonstrate more
courage and faith than wisdom for,
after all, what is there to be said about
a subject in which everyone present is
an expert? Everyone knows what
preaching is — or at least what it ought
to be. The trouble is that when we test
that assumption, it soon becomes clear
that preaching is like pornography in
that while no one can define it satis-
factorily to others, everyone knows it
when he or she hears it!

Clergy who are not parish ministers
may have very clear theoretical under-
standings of preaching which are usual-
ly related in terms of their own profes-
sional specialties. Parish ministers sus-
pect that this certainty is the result of
what Mordecai Kaplan once called in
another context “the immaculate con-
ception of thought not sired by experi-
ence.” Parish ministers confess a con-
fusion about the place of preaching in

1 A Voice From The Crowd , New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1915, p. 30.

the context of their whole ministry.
The difficulties of the preaching task
and the uncertainties about why they
have to do it weekly combine to make
a heavy burden out of what is some-
times called the freedom of the pulpit.
Strange freedom this necessity!

Any serious consideration of preach-
ing needs to deal with three funda-
mental questions:

Why do we preach ? What is the
impetus for it?

What is preaching? What is the
purpose of it ?

How do we do it ?

The main part of this lecture will be
given to the second question, What is
preaching? Before we come to that,
however, we will say something in re-
gard to each of the others.

The question of how we do preach-
ing includes the matters of biblical
exegesis, theological reflection, logical
development of ideas, and effective ex-
pression of thoughts both written and
oral. These matters are inevitably re-
lated to, and the outgrowth of, why we
do preaching and what we understand
preaching to be. The “how to” ques-
tions are exceedingly important because
they lead to the ultimate fruition of
preaching without which it remains
mere theory. They are the flesh and

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

105

blood of our answers to the other ques-
tions. A responsible theological school
which seeks to equip men and women
for the pastorate must provide for the
teaching of “how to preach” because
preaching remains the most regularly
performed public act of ministry.

The “how to” questions have trou-
bled clergy for many centuries as just
one illustration plucked from the his-
tory of the subject will illustrate. A
study of Franciscan preaching 2 reveals
that between the years 1226 and 1536
there were 200 Franciscans who pro-
duced 345 works in homiletics. Of these,
129 were printed in 535 editions com-
prising 363,535 copies. One of the most
popular was that of John of Werden
(d. 1437) who called his book, Dormi
Secure or “Sleep Without Care.” The
sub-title reads, “Sermons for Saints’
Days throughout the year, very notable
and useful to all priests, prelates, and
chaplains . . . seeing that they can
easily be incorporated without great
study and preached to the people.” 3
The work is reported to have gone
through eighty-nine editions in less
than a century. Concerns about how to
do preaching are obviously not of recent
origin. A theological seminary has the
obligation to teach its students how to
do their preparation responsibly.

The question, “ Why do we preach?
draws us inexorably into our under-
standing of the church and its ministry.
What kind of church are we? Are we

2 Anscar Zawart, “The History of Francis-
can Preaching and of Franciscan Preachers
(1209-1927): A Bio-bibliographical Study,” in
the Franciscan Educational Conference, Re-
port of the Ninth Annual Meeting, vol. IX,
no. 9 (September, 1927), pp. 374-375.

3 Life in the Middle Ages, Selected, trans-
lated and annotated by G. G. Coulton, vol. I,
Cambridge: At the University Press, 1928,
p. 232.

a church focused on a liturgical celebra-
tion of the mystery of the Incarnation?
Are we a church focused on mediating
between God and humankind in the
drama of the Mass ? Or are we a church
focused on God’s self-proclaimed revela-
tion in his living Word ? Are we a pro-
claiming church? But more, are we
convinced that the verbal articulation
of the Gospel is of the essence of the
church and not merely a useful accom-
paniment to the doing of the Gospel?

This question has been the major
theological issue in the life of the
United Presbyterian Church — and some
others as well — for the past two dec-
ades. Preaching has tended to be re-
duced to a rationalization for what
we thought the church ought to be
doing in the world. We have surren-
dered our identity as a proclaiming
church in order to be a demonstrating
church. We expressed our apprehension
about the self-authenticating Word and
replaced it with the supposedly self-
authenticating Deed. We were sur-
prised when those within our congrega-
tions, to say nothing of those without,
did not perceive the Deed to be self-
authenticating. Congregations sensed
that something essential had been lost
and lines were drawn between those
who believed in evangelism and those
who believed in social action, between
“meddling in politics” and “preaching
the Gospel.” The distinctions were, of
course, crude simplifications by which
each side tried to justify its own em-
phasis.

My own career of almost twenty-five
years in the ministry includes ample
testimony to my involvement in some
of the most controversial issues of the
times. What I say here is not to depreci-
ate the demonstrating church which
lives out the Gospel. This is not to

io6

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

justify a false dichotomy but to identify
developments. We cannot answer the
question why we preach unless we are
willing to confront the issue whether
or not we believe the verbal articula-
tion of the Gospel is of the essence of
our nature as a proclaiming church.
How shall we exegete Paul’s question:
“How are they to believe in him of
whom they have never heard ? And
how are they to hear without a preach-
er?” (Romans 10:14)

This raises parallel considerations for
the ministry of the church. I cannot
remember when I last heard a candi-
date, who was to come under the care
of a Presbytery of the United Presby-
terian Church, say that he or she felt
called to preach the Gospel. In this day
it seems we are called simply “to min-
ister.” We are ordained to what is
termed the “professional ministry” and
the variety of responsibilities for which
Presbyteries willingly ordain persons is,
to me, staggering. I refrain from ex-
amples at this point because I already
have more enemies than I need! While
the Book of Order still identifies those
who are “ministers of the Word” in
some places, our constitutional status is
that of “Continuing members of the
Presbytery.” My wife has a more ex-
pressive relationship than that; she is
an honorary lifetime member of the
P.T.A.

What does it mean to be called to be
a minister of the Gospel? If ordination
is simply the recognition that one is to
perform a function within the church,
then let us ordain to whatever functions
we will, but let us restrict the ministry
of that person to the function for which
he or she has been ordained. Let us
stop the depreciation of the concept
“Minister of the Word” which we
bring about when we called every func-

tionary a preacher! Involved in any an-
swer to the question, Why do we
preach ? must be some concept that one
feels called to preach; or else we will
continue to have a stream of technicians
who know the mechanics of the job but
who do not have the creative urge to
make it what it must be. How shall
we exegete Paul’s question: “How can
they preach unless they are sent?” (Ro-
mans 10:15) and his own affirmation:
“For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to
me if I do not preach the Gospel ... I
am entrusted with a commission.” (I
Corinthians 9:16-17) Our understand-
ing of the church and its ministry is
crucial to our understanding of why we
preach.

We turn now to the question, What
is preaching? The question is decep-
tively simple, but it has been the con-
cern of Christian thinking about preach-
ing since at least the third century.
Here we must review some of the early
history of preaching. There was, of
course, the exposition-exhortation to the
assemblies of the faithful, usually in the
context of the breaking of bread. There
was also the proclamation of the good
news of Jesus Christ in the synagogues
and marketplaces. It was at that point
in the history of the church when
Christians worshipped openly so that
non-believers could be part of the con-
gregation, and when the church relaxed
the stringent requirements for long
catechumenate periods, that the preach-
er faced the perplexing task of being
both a missionary (in the form of an
apologist) and a teacher and exhorter at
the same time. It was then that a dis-
tinction grew between form and con-
tent — a distinction which has set the
terms of the discussion for centuries.

The first Christian preachers inter-
preted the scriptures from their Chris-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

107

tocentric viewpoint and they hardly
needed formal rhetoric to exhort the
little groups of Christians. As Christian
preachers came into greater contact with
the Greek and Latin-speaking Gentile
world, we find growing evidence to
their attention to the form of the mes-
sage. Bultmann and others identified
what they believed to be a stylistic re-
semblance between certain parts of the
New Testament epistles and the Stoic
diatribe. 4 It should be noted that the
great Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, was
among those forced to leave Rome
when the Emperor Domitian banished
all philosophers from that city about
A.D. 90.

Once we go beyond the New Testa-
ment and the first century, the influence
of Greek Rhetoric on Christian preach-
ing is indisputable. Between the New
Testament and the work of Origen in
the third century there are only two
sermons extant. Unfortunately we have
no sermons from Ignatius, Justin Mar-
tyr, Polycarp, Tertullian, or Irenaeus.
One we do have is The Homily on the
Passion by Melito, Bishop of Sardis. It
gives full evidence of the influence of
Greek Rhetoric upon Christian preach-
ing in the East by A.D. 170. This work,
identified only in 1930, 5 sets the \nown
beginning of “stylized Christian ora-
tory.”

The influence of Greek Rhetoric be-
came pervasive in the third and fourth
centuries. Basil, Gregory and Chrysos-

4 R. Leijs, S.I., “Predication Des Apotres,”
in Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Tome LXIX,
1947.

5 Edited by Campbell Bonner (Studies
and Documents, XII), London: Christophers
and Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1940. For a full description of the
Codex see Campbell Bonner, The Last Chap-
ters of Enoch in Greek., pp. 2-12 (Studies and
Documents, VIII).

tom were pupils of the outstanding
pagan Sophist, Libanius. In their later
years they attacked Sophistic Rhetoric,
but they could not escape its influence
on their preaching. In one of Basil’s
sermons he stops to say

Now do not laugh at the homeliness
of my diction, for we do not approve
of your high-spun phrases and care
not a jot for your harmonious ar-
rangements. Our writers do not waste
their time in polishing periods. We
prefer clarity of expression to mere
euphony. 6

It is indicative of the influence of his
rhetorical training, however, that Basil
should phrase this denial in a carefully
constructed chiasmus: a subtle form of
parallelism which reverses the elements
in the preceding clause to avoid monot-
ony while retaining symmetry. The
danger against which conscientious
preachers struggled was the danger that
preaching would be reduced to style
alone. That this should even have be-
come a concern indicates how quickly
the simple exposition of scripture or
the missionary message became a much
more complicated question when the
Church really moved out into the
world. Once the relatively simple story
of Jesus had been told again and again,
what was preaching to become?

When C. H. Dodd 7 isolated for us ele-
ments of the original \erygma, the
core of the apostolic preaching, he con-

6 Campbell, James M., The Influence of
the Second Sophistic on the Style of the
Sermons of St. Basil the Great. (The Catho-
lic University of American Patristic Studies,
Vol. II), Washington, D.C.: Catholic Uni-
versity of America, 1922, p. 146.

7 The Apostolic Preaching And Its De-
velopments , New York and London: Harper
and Brothers, 1954. (First published in
1936.)

io8

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

vinced us that we cannot preach just
what Paul did. What meaning would it
have for our congregations if we
stressed that Christ “was born of the
seed of David?” How can we say that
“the prophecies are fulfilled, and the
new Age is inaugurated by the coming
of Christ” when our hearers know and
care little about prophecies which are
no part of their immediate heritage,
when they have an entirely different
conception as to what a “new Age”
means, and when we are not preaching
at the time of the inauguration of this
Age, but nineteen centuries later!

This problem with the content of the
message was also recognized early in
the history of Christian preaching. Ori-
gen, in the first half of the third cen-
tury, stressed the literal interpretation
of biblical history and events whenever
that was possible. However, it was he
who gave the rationale and defense to
allegorical interpretation. So strong was
this impetus that the medieval preacher
was expected to find at least four and,
preferably seven, senses in every pas-
sage of Scripture. The method of inter-
pretation which Origen employed, like
the method of presentation which
Chrysostom used, was at the time a
meaningful way to communicate the
Gospel. R. M. Grant has observed

The allegorical method, at a critical
moment in Christian history, made
it possible to uphold the rationality of
Christian faith. It was used to pre-
vent obscurantism. And though we
question not only its assumptions but
also its results, we must not forget
what we owe to it. 8

Similarly, another scholar has observed
of the rhetorical style of Chrysostom

8 The Bible in the Church, New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1948.

The refined and cultured audiences
of Antioch and Constantinople would
have ignored a preacher whose ex-
position of doctrine was devoid of the
graces and embellishments of lan-
guage which they prized so highly.
The heretics and infidels, who were
either to be refuted or won over to
the truth, would have scorned and
ridiculed him. 9

These early attempts to adapt both
the content and the form of Christian
preaching to the needs of the times set
the pattern for centuries to come. How-
ever that pattern was given explicit at-
tention by Augustine in his On Chris-
tian Doctrine. Augustine began this
work in 397 but left it unfinished at
chapter 25 of the third book. 10 Rome
fell in 410. From 413 to 426 Augustine
worked on his City of God. It indicates
something of the importance he at-
tached to preaching that after such an
historical upheaval he should have re-
turned in 426 to the completion of book
three and book four which is essentially
the first Christian manual of preaching.
Books one to three of On Christian
Doctrine deal with the interpretation
and understanding of Scripture while
book four deals with the communica-
tion of this understanding. The work
was so significant that it was referred
to and used in other writings in the
sixth and ninth centuries. It was com-
mended by Bonaventure and Thomas

9 Ameringer, Thomas E„ "The Stylistic In-
fluence of the Second Sophistic On the Pane-
gyrical Sermons of St. John Chrysostom,” A
Study In Gree\ Rhetoric (The Catholic Uni-
versity of America Patristic Studies, Vol. V).
Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of
America, 1921.

10 NPNF, First Series, vol. II; The Fathers
of the Church, vol. IV. See Augustine, Re-
tractions, book II, chap. 4.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

Aquinas. In the Renaissance it was the
first work of a Church Father to be
printed. About 1465 two editions of
book four appeared in Germany under
the title, The Art of Preaching. Most
significant for us, however, is that Au-
gustine’s aims for preaching, taken
from Cicero, continued to be given as
the aims of preaching as late as 1937
in American homiletics. 11

Augustine ignored centuries of So-
phistic Rhetoric and went back instead
to the injunctions of Cicero who said
of the orator: “To teach is a necessity,
to delight is a beauty, to persuade is a
triumph.” However, what tended for
Cicero to be three aims or functions of
the orator, became for Augustine three
types of style, no one of which is an end
in itself. Augustine comments that the
truth alone is rarely enough to persuade
and move, so the preacher follows
through the whole process of instruct-
ing, pleasing and persuading. “The
teaching, which is a matter of necessity,
depends on what we say; the other two
on the way we say it.” The Ciceronian
aims, reinterpreted by Augustine, thus
became the essential definition of the
purpose of Christian preaching for the
next fifteen hundred years!

To teach, to please, to persuade —
this was what preaching had to do. To
be sure the content given in the rhetori-
cal form was to be the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, however interpreted. The form,
though, was not shaped — or judged —
by Christian theology. It was available
for any kind of secular or sacred use.
The General Assembly of the United
Presbyterian Church in i960, heard a
speaker tell them that the functions of
radio and television broadcasting were

11 Andrew W. Blackwood, The Fine Art
of Preaching, New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1937, p. 22.

109

to inform, to entertain, and to sell.
Cicero on Madison Avenue! 12 Little
wonder that seminary professors in
the later nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries took pains in their Inaugural
addresses and other writings to explain
the difference between “Sacred Rhet-
oric” and just plain “Rhetoric.” The
difference usually came down to the
sacred content of the message and the
sacred calling of the speaker. Never was
the question of the applicability of the
aims of pagan rhetoric to Christian
preaching challenged directly. Through-
out all this period many things were
said about the person of the speaker
or preacher, and even about the place
of the Holy Spirit. But the essential
legacy given to us was a definition
of preaching in terms of the form and
content of the sermon. What this per-
mitted was an understanding of preach-
ing wherein the content could easily be
separated from the aim and purpose.

Professor Ovid Sellers devoted his
inaugural address as Professor of He-
brew and Old Testament Exegesis at
McCormick Theological Seminary in
1924 to the topic, Hebrew and Homi-
letics. He offered it as “an apology for
the existence of the department of
Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis
in a progressive 20th Century Christian
Theological Seminary.” 13 As part of his
apology for Hebrew, he gave the need
for understanding the problems of
biblical criticism as well as the text and
commentaries. During the 1920’s few
preachers were stressing the bible in
their sermons. Still they went right on

12 Speech by Thomas Bostic, Mayor of
Yakima, Washington and President of Cas-
cade Broadcasting Co. May 21, i960.

13 Published in pamphlet form. Copy in
Speer Library of Princeton Theological Semi-
nary.

1 10

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

preaching: teaching, pleasing and per-
suading! The Trade Lists of 1925 show
that twice as many single volumes of
sermons were published as in 1900.
Whereas the statements on preaching
of Luther and Calvin had thrown the
emphasis on the almost autonomous
Word of God, historical development
was to show that the form could be just
as autonomous as the content. Never
have we developed a wholistic concept
of preaching!

But preaching is far more than the
form and content of a sermon. Preach-
ing is a complicated event which has
four significant human components.
These are:

The one who speaks.

Those who hear what is said.

That which is said (its form and
content).

The social/cultural milieu in which
something is said by the one to the
several.

In other words there is a preacher, a
congregation, a sermon, and a particu-
lar context of time, place and circum-
stance. It is an error to formulate an
understanding of what preaching is
which does not include all four of these
components. Anything else is partial. It
may be possible to analyze each of these
components separately under principles
of exegesis, principles of communica-
tion, and a theology of the Word. But
it is impossible then to simply put them
all in juxtaposition and have an ade-
quate understanding of preaching.
Preaching must be understood as an
organic event in which these four com-
ponents are so intermingled as to be
partly indistinguishable. The preacher
is not merely one who “delivers” the
sermon ; the preacher also is the sermon,
the personification of this expression of

faith. The sermon is not simply the
biblical-theological content, but it is
this as filtered through a particular
preacher and as perceived by a member
of the congregation in terms of his or
her personal life situation which, in
turn, is part of the general social con-
text.

Such a dynamic event as preaching
can only be described by an image
which itself conveys the idea of multi-
plicity in one. The image I would
suggest is the image of Preaching As
Confluence. The word confluence has
three meanings — all of them germane
to this concept of preaching. Confluence
is a flowing together of two or more
streams. Confluence is their place of
junction. Confluence is the body of
water so formed. The source of preach-
ing is confluence, the flowing together
of the four streams: preacher, congre-
gation, sermon, context. The event of
preaching is confluence — their place of
junction. The result of preaching is con-
fluence — the new body of experience so
formed by this coming together.

While we could produce many exam-
ples, from Augustine on, of those who
have recognized the existence of these
four components of the preaching situa-
tion, the components have always been
analyzed as more or less distinct. My
suggestion here is that such an ap-
proach cannot define for us the essence
of preaching which depends on the ab-
solute intermingling of the four com-
ponents. We need a hermeneutic ap-
proach which is able to cope with this.
Because we have continued to make an
analytical distinction of the components
of the preaching event, we continue to
say or do things which to me are un-
acceptable.

One of these is the claim that there is
some autonomous, external Word of

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

hi

God, unconditioned historically, which
speaks to the preacher and through him
or her to the congregation. Karl Barth’s
doctrine of the Word gave a theological
certainty to preachers, but at the cost of
reality in a practical sense . 14 Helmut
Thielicke’s comment is to the point
when he says, “Our word in the sermon
merely shares the fateful impotency of
all other words .” 15 It may even be pos-
sible to suggest that the Word of God
forms itself through the shaping of
human existence which takes place in
the confluence of which we have been
speaking so that, by the power of the
Holy Spirit, this confluence becomes a
particular actualization of the Word of
God.

A second thing unacceptable to me is
that the preacher should be a passive
participant in the preaching event’s
most significant decision. The preacher
is such when he or she permits the
lectionary to choose the scriptural text
for the sermon. The increased use of the
lectionary as a basis for preaching in the
Reformed tradition is symptomatic of
the decline of the preacher as an active
theologian. When the preacher has
no sense of what the Word of the Lord
needs to be, he can always fall back on
what cycle A says is the Word for this
week. But the words of Amos on the
lips of Hosea are not the Word of God
to his people. When the preacher relies
on cycle A to tell her what to say, that
preacher has already surrendered the
most significant theological decision she
is called upon to make, namely, what is
the Word of God for this people, this

14 See Theology of the Liberating Word,
edited by Frederick Herzog, chap. II, “From
the Word to the Words” by Hans-Dieter
Bastian, pp. 46-75, Nashville-New ' York:
Abingdon Press, 1971.

15 Ibid. p. 49. (Quoted)

week? After the preacher has made
that decision, everything else is “how
to.” How to exegete it, organize it, ex-
press it! But a perfect exegesis, even
exposition, of the wrong Scripture for
the time is a case of preaching the Bible
rather than preaching the Gospel.

The preacher is responsible before
God to see that the necessary confluence
takes place as the rushing streams of the
culture, the individual lives of the con-
gregation members, the faith experience
of the preacher, and the reality of Jesus
Christ meet at that moment of junction
which is the preaching event. The
preacher cannot guarantee what the
results of that confluence will be. That
is the work of the Holy Spirit. The
preacher is responsible to be an active
theologian who provides two of the
necessary components to the confluence:
himself/herself as a faith-person and a
carefully thought through presentation
of the Gospel. We do not, then, even
come close to a definition of preaching
in terms of teaching or persuading. You
cannot define this swirling together in
confluence. You experience it; and
when you have, you say, “That is
preaching!”

This is an insecure, even frightening
position to be in as a preacher. It is the
kind of experience which W. H. Auden
describes about the poet. If, in the fol-
lowing passage you think “preacher”
and “sermon” where Auden says “poet”
and “poem” you will get some sense of
what preaching as confluence implies.

He will never be able to say: “To-
morrow I will write a poem and,
thanks to my training and experience,
I already know I shall do a good job.”
In the eyes of others a man is a poet
if he has written one good poem. In
his own he is only a poet at the mo-

1 12

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

ment when he is making his last re-
vision to a new poem. The moment
before, he was still only a potential
poet; the moment after, he is a man
who has ceased to write poetry, per-
haps forever . 16

I do not expect that everyone has
agreed with all that has been said in this
lecture. As a matter of fact, I would be
disappointed if all did! I have tried to
indicate that some basic assumptions

16 The Dyer’s Hand and other essays, New
York: Random House, 1962, p. 41.

about preaching must be reopened to
investigation and that present practices
need continually to be evaluated. Most
of all it is my concern to demonstrate
that a Seminary of the Reformed tra-
dition needs to provide not only for the
practice of preaching, but also for con-
tinuing reflection on the history and
interpretation of this event which is the
most cogent reminder in the life of the
Church that the Word of God must
always be a living Word to this gen-
eration.

The Minister’s Theological
Responsibility*

by Seward Hiltner

T hree factors in my experience of
recent years have led me to focus
this discussion on the minister’s theo-
logical responsibility. These are, first,
my work in the Doctor of Ministry
program; second, some recent acquaint-
ance with the standard examination in
theology of the United Presbyterian
Church; and third, my efforts in several
courses to teach the theological dimen-
sions of pastoral care.

In the D.Min. program it was soon
discovered that this generally able and
talented group of ministers had done
very little to cultivate theological reflec-
tion on their actual experiences of
ministry. Whether the ministry event
under consideration was a pastoral call,
a sermon, the course of a meeting, or a
stewardship campaign, the theological
comments about it tended toward su-
perficiality in most instances, and some-
times even to irrelevance. If the event
reported was a pastoral call on someone
who appeared resistive to help, the
theological remarks might be only that
the person needed to love, or to accept

* Address given at the Opening Convoca-
tion of the 1978-79 academic year at Prince-
ton Theological Seminary.

An alumnus of Lafayette College and the
University of Chicago (B.D. and PhD.),
the Rev. Seward Hiltner has been Professor of
Theology and Personality at Princeton Theo-
logical Seminary since 1961. From 1938 to
1950, Dr. Hiltner served as Executive Secre-
tary of the Department of Pastoral Services of
the Commission on Religion and Health and
the Commission on Ministry in Institutions of
the Federal Council of Churches. He was for
eleven years Professor of Pastoral Theology
and Chairman of the Field of Religion and
Personality at the University of Chicago. A
widely \nown writer, Dr. Hiltner has pub-
lished over 200 articles in the field of religion
and psychiatry and is the author of ten boo\s,
including Ferment in the Ministry (Abing-
don, 1969).

the love of God in Jesus Christ. Seldom
was the theological understanding of
love used to show exactly why such
human resistances are so deep and dif-
ficult to overcome. When I made such
a point in a workshop discussion, the
ministers seemed glad to have it. But
the next report was likely to be little
better theologically than the first. I
came to assume, therefore, that we were
dealing not mainly with lack of knowl-
edge but with resistance, a kind of re-
sistance that the persons themselves did
not know they had.

Later experience has tended to con-
firm this theory. Somehow and some-
where most ministers have come to
regard theology as a kind of magic
helper, usually elusive, but capable of
reinforcing one’s ministry efforts if
only one can hit on the correct positive
note. The fact is of course that bringing
to bear on a situation the most relevant
theological insights may show that what
one has been attempting needs not rein-
forcement but criticism. It is significant
that several of these ministers I have
known have begun to gain ability to
reflect theologically on their experiences
only after being shaken by a reflection

n 4 THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

of this kind emerging in a workshop
discussion.

The second factor that has influenced
my choice of topic is the standard Pres-
byterian examination in theology. In
this examination the questions are posed
in situational form. The candidate is
not evaluated in terms of the theological
content of his or her position, but for
ability to relate theological resources or
issues to the situation as described. Let
me suggest the principles that seem to
be operating here.

First, the candidate’s theological abil-
ity is distinguished from any type of
predetermined content position. Con-
comitantly, the freedom to take one
position or another is not regarded as
antithetical to theological ability. No
doubt some positions taken by candi-
dates strain the patience of examiners.
But so long as a candidate seems to be
on the road to some kind of Christian
position, that effort is respected; and
what is measured is the candidate’s
awareness of the resources being used
in the process.

Second, when asked to articulate
something of a theological nature that
may shed light on the situation posed,
the candidate is free to select his or her
theological data from biblical, doctrinal,
ethical, historical or other sources de-
pending on his or her judgment of their
relevance. At least in principle, this
view renounces the notion that there is
some master theological discipline from
which all others are derivative. Thus
the multiperspectival nature of theology
itself seems to be espoused.

The third factor leading me to this
topic has been my own teaching ex-
perience in pastoral care, attempting to
help students to relate theological re-
sources and issues to their experiences
in pastoral care. To make progress

along this line, I have found that there
is no substitute for theological analysis
of the student’s own reports. From these
teaching experiences let me add only
one point of insight, namely, helping
the student to a proper relationship be-
tween involvement and reflection.

Some students in pastoral care are
inclined to believe, at first, that if theol-
ogy is relevant then it follows that there
will be a theological talk with the pa-
rishioner. Since that may sometimes be
true, I am of course careful not to ne-
gate the idea entirely. But the fact is
that theological reflection by the student
is of great importance even when it may
not at this time be appropriate to have
explicit God talk with the parishioner.
Understanding this is not easy for some
students. They may have caught a
vision of what it means to begin to help
another human being. So they are
tempted to over-value involvement. To
stand aside and detached, and to ask
from theological perspectives just what
has taken place, may appear cold as
against the warmth of the actual rela-
tionship. But it may be just as important
for long term helping to become a
reality.

All Christians have a ministry, not
only those who are ordained or profes-
sional, and that ministry includes some
kind and degree of theological respon-
sibility. But if the “pastoral directors,”
as H. Richard Niebuhr called them, are
not exercising theological responsibility,
it is altogether likely that no one is.

The discussion will be in three sec-
tions. First, what theological responsi-
bility means. Second, the nature of
the minister’s theological responsibility.
Third, the Seminary’s task in fostering
theological responsibility among min-
isters.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

I

The prerequisite to theology is a com-
munity of faith. Without the com-
munity, reflection would be philosophy
not theology. Without the faith, it could
as easily be detachment as commitment.

A community of faith does not, how-
ever, automatically produce theology. It
may only restate its heritage in the
language that appeared at the time of its
formation. Theology appears only when
two additional steps are undertaken :
first, translation of the heritage across
time and circumstance; second, seri-
ously inquiring about possible discrep-
ancies between the basic faith and in-
terpretations put upon it in the interim.
When all three processes are in opera-
tion, there is theology.

Appropriate translation requires some
degree of expert knowledge; but its
touchstone is the involvement/detach-
ment tension already noted. Under-
standing of a biblical text should be
within its own frame of reference,
historical circumstances, and author’s
bent. Granted the intent of the text in
its own setting, however, is there clari-
fying explanation of how, if at all, that
point transcends time and circum-
stance? If the topic is Jesus Christ as
God/man in the formula of Chalcedon,
is there attempt to show the values that
the Chalcedonian Council was trying to
protect in face of inevitably serious
criticisms of the adequacy of Chalce-
donian language for today’s understand-
ing of Jesus Christ?

Let me go one step further with the
formula of Chalcedon, especially since
a good deal of recent work on Christol-
ogy has tried to translate it in new
ways. Although some of these efforts
are more promising than others, none
has won much acceptance. In my opin-

ri5

ion, most of the new formulations tend
to take too lightly the inherently para-
doxical nature of the Chalcedonian in-
tent. A real paradox may be clarified
but it cannot be solved or eliminated.
Over-emphasis on detachment may take
the paradox too lightly. On the other
side, over-emphasis on involvement may
resist entirely the effort to translate
Chalcedon into terms that are com-
prehensible today.

The third ingredient needed to pro-
duce theology by a community of faith
is inquiry, which proceeds both by cri-
tique and construction. While respect-
ing the faith, its critique expresses
skepticism about the understanding of
the faith on the part both of our ances-
tors and ourselves. The construction is
partly translation as already described,
but also testing the faith against con-
temporary circumstances, which may in
important respects be different from
those of the past. In inquiry also there
is properly a tension beween involve-
ment and detachment. Over-involve-
ment destroys serious inquiry, but a
focus on detachment alone may forget
that even the most rigorous inquiry is
undertaken within the context of a
community of faith.

If theology is a reflective activity of
the community of faith that includes
appreciation, translation, and inquiry,
what, then, is theological responsibility
within that community? I suggest that
it means a proper exercise of all three
of these functions at all times, even
when there appear on occasion to be
severe tensions among them.

It is clear that a community lacking
appreciation of what is central in its
heritage could have, at best, an episodic
kind of theology with no clear criteria
for curbing its eclecticism. It would,
therefore, lack responsibility in relation

ii6

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

to its heritage. If a community valued
its faith and heritage, but denigrated
the need for translation of it for con-
temporary understanding, it would in-
vite a combination of obscurantism and
idolatry. And if both heritage and trans-
lation were taken seriously, but inquiry
shunted aside, it would not be long
until the test of faith became believing
six impossible things before breakfast,
as Lewis Carroll put it. In such situa-
tions, theological responsibility would
be subverted by selective inattention to
ingredients that are essential to theology
itself.

The actual exercise of theological re-
sponsibility by a community, however,
is not guaranteed by the fact that some
attention is paid to all the principal
factors. So long as they seem to be mu-
tually reinforcing, that may appear to
be true. But what happens when they
are in conflict? The nineteenth cen-
tury’s controversies over slavery illus-
trate this situation. The New Testament
discussion of slavery as an institution is,
at best, equivocal. Should it be trans-
lated to mean subservience by slaves?
Or would critical inquiry question the
very base of slavery as an institution?
There appear to be occasions when
theological responsibility requires that
inquiry win over heritage and transla-
tion, as the latter have previously been
conceived. After the battle, however,
there needs to be reconception of the
heritage and a new framework for its
translation. Today’s liberation theolo-
gies regard themselves as at a similar
polemical point in the struggle. Wheth-
er they can win a victory, as did the
opponents of slavery, and then return
to appreciation and translation of the
heritage, remains to be seen.

There are no general and infallible
standards by which we can judge the

degree to which a community is exer-
cising theological responsibility. It is
clear, however, that such standards must
be equally aware of the specific needs in
the actual contemporary situation and
of the basic message of the faith.

II

As coordinator of a particular com-
munity, the minister is to ensure that
general theological responsibility, as
previously set forth, is exercised in that
community. Not all the community’s
responsibility is to be carried out by the
minister himself or herself. That is why
the notion of the minister as theologian
in residence may be misleading; for if
you may have a theologian around, you
may also not have one. Further, if the
minister is acting as theologian only
when unengaged in program duties,
then the reflective and detached aspect
of theology is over-emphasized at the
expense of involvement in necessary
activities and ministries. Nothing
should cloud the fact that it is finally
the community that bears theological
responsibility.

Bearing general responsibility is not,
however, the same thing as possessing
the special knowledge and competence
that presumably go along with the
minister’s education and vocation. It is
legitimate, therefore, for the community
to look to the minister for theological
leadership. Certainly that should imply
the minister’s schooling the community
at appropriate levels, on how to exercise
its theological responsibility. But the
minister would be copping out if he or
she confined theological reflection to the
level that could easily be taught to the
people. Being one lesson ahead in the
textbook is hardly enough.

The minister has three kinds of
guidelines that may be used to help

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

shape his or her theological responsi-
bility over the course of a career. The
first of these is some reasonable atten-
tion to theological responsibility in gen-
eral as that has been described: atten-
tiveness to the faith and heritage,
wrestling with proper translation of it,
and constant inquiry into its meaning
and implications. There is an inescap-
able obligation to keep up a little bit
across the whole range of theological
studies. To this end there are journals,
continuing education programs, sound
older books that one owns but never
mastered, as well as the chance to select
discriminatingly from new literature.

The second guideline, I am firmly
convinced, is for the minister to give
particular attention to that area of
theology or of ministry that has most
helped him or her to “come alive” as a
minister. These areas may be very
different for different people. They may
be as varied as the letters of Paul, the
dynamics of groups, clinical pastoral
education, the patterns of worship, in-
volvement in the inner city, or the life
of Martin Luther. The point is that, for
some people, the excitement engendered
by some one of these areas has been
indigenous, and has sharpened one’s
sensitivity to everything else going on
in ministry. It is not the same thing as
an academic field of specialization. One
may never become an expert in it, tech-
nically speaking. But if the interest in it
is inherent and strong, it is probably
worthwhile to continue cultivating it
so long as it continues to shed light on
much beyond itself. Some interests of
this enlivening kind appear to be life-
long, while others are useful for a time
and then are supplanted by others that
perform the same illuminating' func-
tion.

The third guideline lies in disciplined

1 17

theological reflection on the daily ex-
periences of actual ministry, as discussed
earlier in the introduction in connection
with the Doctor of Ministry program.
One might put it this way. Every act of
ministry, if it has been worth doing at
all, and regardless of its apparent suc-
cess or failure, deserves a little bit of
reflection to the end of improvement
next time. But if such reflection is
non-theological, then the minister is as
slowly but surely building a wall be-
tween ministry and theology as if he or
she frankly renounced all theological
interest.

I have already suggested, however,
that the impediments to making this
kind of procedure habitual are for-
midable. It is not simply that a compe-
tent theological analysis of a ministry
situation may show up deficiencies in
what one has done or tried to do. The
resistance seems deeper than such spe-
cific critiques. It seems determined to
protect, at almost any cost, the notion
that theology is a help and not a judg-
ment. Earlier, I called this a “magic
helper” conception of theology. From a
psychological point of view, it demon-
strates the process of defensive idealiza-
tion, according to which it may be
much more difficult to admit the pos-
sible error in one’s view of the ideal
self than to confess the flaws in the
actual self. The early researches of Carl
Rogers were instructive on this point.
Successful counseling changed the view
of the actual self. But it seldom touched
the picture of the ideal self. The im-
pregnable bastion was the imaginative
view of what one might be. It is of
course precisely this imaginative pro-
jection that a well-rounded theology
calls into question.

When the ministers in our D.Min.
program do learn to use a wide range

n8

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

of theological resources in analyzing
their ministry situations, I believe they
are learning to give up, however slowly
and reluctantly, some kind of idealized
view of theology. They see that theology
is not a magic helper automatically sup-
porting their intention in particular acts
of ministry. They experience a critique
of that very intention; but at the same
time they receive a judgment on the
past situation, they acquire an insight
into the next situation. Theology is de-
throned from its idealized state, and
proves, all things considered, to be more
helpful than otherwise. To arrive at
that end, however, the notion that theol-
ogy is to be attended to only when it is
obviously helpful has had to be re-
nounced. Hearing the word, as Karl
Barth correctly stated, is at first always
upsetting. Learning to listen for the
word is, as he was more reluctant to
state, a source of deeper satisfaction
than anyone knows who has never gen-
uinely heard the word.

Ill

What can and should a seminary do
to help its students and graduates to
develop appropriate theological respon-
sibility? Some of these things have been
alluded to in the previous discussion,
and need only to be mentioned. First,
courses that deal with some dimension
of ministry, such as preaching or pas-
toral care, can make explicit efforts to
aid students to relate theological re-
sources responsibly to the specific tasks.
Second, it is my conviction that such
learning is always greater when the
actual experience of the student or min-
ister is the focus of discussion. Third,
there seems no good reason why a stu-
dent’s work in any branch of theology
cannot, to some extent, be explicitly
related to actual or potential ministry

situations, or at least the background
laid for the student to do so.

If these and other specific measures
are to be effective, however, it seems
necessary for students and ministers to
be convinced that the faculty collective-
ly is concerned to relate theology and
ministry. The relatively good record
that we have had in the D.Min. work-
shops to this end suggests that, at least
for the two workshop leaders, one from
a classical and the other from a practical
discipline, that really works. Virtually
without exception, faculty members
who have led such workshops have in
fact been committed to relating theol-
ogy and ministry, regarding neither
as foreign to their task. That fact has
had a paramount influence on the
ministers in the workshops. Ordinarily
they do not emerge from the program
as research experts in any branch of
theology or ministry. But they acquire
wisdom in exploring those theological
resources that can best guide them in a
variety of ministry situations.

I do not believe that we can precisely
duplicate the D.Min. experience with
students in the initial phase of theologi-
cal education. The ministers are on the
job full time, have fully accepted their
ministerial role, and have encountered
troubling problems on which they are
seeking light. That may or may not be
true of M.Div. and A.M. students, but
it is nothing against them that it is
often untrue. Therefore, it is clear that
a precise duplication of the D.Min.
program would be unrealistic.

From the beginning of the D.Min.
program, however, we have sought to
explore what aspects of that agenda
might have transfer value to our pri-
mary degree work. Already many
courses are profiting in some respects
from the inquiries. If the faculty were

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

large enough to enable us to have more
jointly taught courses, crossing the lines
of fields and departments, we could do
still more.

There is, nevertheless, a factor of re-
sistance in the faculty. This has arisen
as the unintended consequence of im-
proving theological knowledge and un-
derstanding by cultivating specializa-
tion in scholarship. Such specialization,
whether in the New Testament, ethics,
or Christian education, makes possible
for faculty members a depth of ex-
ploration not otherwise possible. Un-
happily, its unintended and undesirable
corollary is often to give not only to
individual faculty members but also to
a faculty collectively the notion that
they have been granted certificates of
exemption from any responsibility ex-
cept in relation to their field of special-
ization. It is a good thing to have free-
dom to explore an area in depth. But
if much of the faculty’s task is prepar-
ing people for ministry, it is not a good
thing if the certificates of exemption
are displayed as prominently as the
areas of special competence. The minis-
ter, present or future, knows that he or
she will have to try to put it all to-
gether. People who appear to have a
license freeing them from any such re-
sponsibility can hardly be called the
best role models.

It is to just this kind of situation that
one of our experiments of the past two
years has spoken very loudly and clear-
ly. Since the autumn of 1976, three
groups of faculty members, averaging
ten or so at a time, have engaged in
serious seminar study patterned on the
D.Min. workshop model. Actual min-
istry situations in which faculty mem-
bers have been engaged have been put
into written form, and analyzed, with
discussion focusing on the use of theo-

119

logical issues or resources to improve
understanding of the situations of min-
istry. Every participating faculty mem-
ber has exposed himself or herself in
terms of an act of ministry, not just the
field of specialization. Colleagues have
dealt critically, but also supportively,
with each situation. I have encountered
no faculty member participating in one
of these seminars who does not feel
significantly improved by the experi-
ence. Not quite half the faculty have so
far been involved in these seminars. It
is my hope that the remainder of the
faculty will either enroll for the seminar
scheduled for 1979, or request one for
a future date. The seminars are not a
panacea. But in my seventeen years on
this campus, they have done more to
eliminate the certificates of exemption
than anything else I have seen.

When each of these faculty seminars
has concluded, its members have been
impressed with the unfinished business
of how the new insights may, at least
in a few particular ways, be carried over
into regular work beyond the D.Min.
program itself. There have been con-
tinuing meetings and discussions to that
end. Every possible experimental ad-
vance has of course to confront the
weight of heavily scheduled routine.

In however small a way, the faculty
seminars have made one declaration in
principle that is of paramount impor-
tance. The participating members have
said in effect: we will not ask ministers
to do something that we have not made
an effort to do ourselves. Token as it
may have been, that involvement on the
part of faculty members has included
not only exposure of themselves in
ministry situations but also exploration
of theological resources relevant to those
situations, no matter if the resources lie
within the field of specialization or not.

120

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

All certificates of exemption have been
cancelled.

Is it possible for a theological semi-
nary to induce its whole faculty to can-
cel their exemption certificates so that
the issues and resources in theology it-
self, and in its relation to ministry, may
be seriously and periodically discussed
as a part of the ongoing life of the fac-
ulty as basic as developing curriculums
or making policy decisions? I do not
know the answer to this question. But
I believe the recent seminars by the
three faculty groups provide a potential
climate for such discussion that was
only nascent before.

Theology, whether we like it or not,
is a complex business. Without faith
and commitment, it would never get
started. But without both scholarship
and self-questioning, it would be with-
out the cutting edge of inquiry. It is

both initiated and concluded by involve-
ment, but in between it must become at
home with detachment, although never
so comfortable as to eschew involve-
ment altogether.

It is my testimony, perhaps not scien-
tifically verifiable but nonetheless full
of conviction, that God’s grace has been
operative in this seminary precisely in
some of the activities I have described
in this discussion. I am far from cer-
tain, in detailed terms of program, how
we may respond to that action in the
ways that will advance theological re-
sponsibility most effectively for minis-
ters, for other students, and for our-
selves. Something, however small and
token it may be, has happened here that
is not of our own conscious devising.
If we recognize that, it is possible that
we may not fail to hear the call.

The Door That Closes

Sermon by Paul W. Meyer

Born in India of missionary parents, the
Rev. Paul W . Meyer is the Helen H. P. Man-
son Professor of New Testament Literature
and Exegesis at Princeton Theological Semi-
nary. An alumnus of Elmhurst College and
Union T heological Seminary, N.Y. (B.D.
and Th.D.), with studies also in Basel and
Gottingen, Dr. Meyer has taught at Colgate-
Rochester Divinity School, Vanderbilt Theo-
logical Seminary, and came to Princeton in
the autumn of igy8. He is the author of The
Justification of Jesus (igyy Shaffer Lectures
at Yale). This sermon was given in Miller
Chapel on November 29, igy8.

Text: Luke 12:22-70 (RSV )

S ome years ago the Columbia Broad-
casting System devoted one of its
special broadcasts to an “Essay on
Doors.” In what was at once a light-
hearted whimsy and a kind of reflective
visual and audio prose poem, the com-
mentator, followed by the moving tele-
vision camera, sauntered from one kind
of door to another, opening, closing,
demonstrating and talking about: the
warmly-lit and inviting front door of a
home; a much more heavily used kitch-
en screen-door, with its long spring and
the unforgettable sound of its slam-
ming shut; a revolving door, simulta-
neously inhaling and exhaling custom-
ers of some busy emporium; a mysteri-
ous closet-door; a conversational Dutch
door; a tricky pair of louvered swinging
doors — and many more.

One could conduct a comparable tour
of Biblical doors, and find a similar
variety of denotation and connotation.
A few, just within the New Testament,
are: the temple doors, in one place
shading a crippled beggar who arrested
the passing apostles, and in another
slammed shut to keep out Paul and the
supposed defilement of his non-Jewish
companions on the sacred precincts;
the visionary door through which the

seer of Revelation is admitted to the
throne of heaven and its surrounding
worship; the figurative door of mission-
ary opportunity opened for Paul in
Ephesus; the door of death and decay,
shut and opened by the rolling of a
great stone; the prison doors, from
which here an earthquake and there an
angel set apostles free; the gates of
Hades, signaling the domain of an alien
and hostile power; the door to the
sheepfold, serving to test whether the
one who enters is a real shepherd or an
impostor; Jesus himself, the door to
salvation; or the door of the hearer’s
indifferent heart, upon which the words
of Jesus are a knock, a persevering, a
persisting, a pressing knock.

One of these words of Jesus, which
supplies our text, has itself to do with
a door. Not two doors, mark you, one
leading to life and the other to death,
but one door, which is eventually a
closed door. The only question about
that kind of door is which side of it a
person is on, for a closed door has only
two sides: an inside and an outside.

There is nothing particularly unclear
about the parable. Jesus is asked to re-
spond to a standard religious question
of his day: whether in the end only a

122

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

few will turn out to be saved. His reply
is to speak of salvation as a door which
God opens and human beings must
enter, a door that opens only from the
inside. And it is a narrow door: it takes
some struggle and effort to get in; one
cannot simply stroll leisurely through
it! If some do not enter, that is not
because God is unwilling to admit
them, but because they fail to meet the
terms which the door itself imposes,
and the running themes of Jesus’ teach-
ing in the Synoptic tradition make clear
what that involves: salvation cannot be
taken for granted; it is not enough to
say “We have Abraham as our father”;
the very presence of God’s open door
poses the demand for a response to
Him, for obedience and the pursuit of
his righteousness!

Even more important: this door is
not rusted open permanently. A time
comes when the door is shut, when it is
too late for even the most strenuous ef-
fort to gain access. The last verses vivid-
ly contrast what goes on inside and out-
side this closed door. Inside is light and
joy; here the patriarchs and prophets,
and people from every quarter of the
world sit down at the Messianic Ban-
quet in the Kingdom of God. Outside
there is darkness and despair. “Weep-
ing and gnashing of teeth” in this con-
text is hardly an expression of remorse
and fear — but the grinding fury of frus-
tration on the part of those who thought
they had some right to get in. This
fury is their punishment, for the King-
dom of God always turns things inside
out. “I tell you, I do not know where
you come from.” The reality of God
and his repudiation is far more shatter-
ing than any silence of God ever could
be; it always upsets the calculations of
those who believe they have some pre-
scriptive right to God’s favor. “Yes,

and some who are now last will be first,
and some who are first will be last.”

Of course it has always been possible
for some Christian folk to remain un-
touched by the sight of this closed
door, to make out that they are the
ones inside and that those who stand
outside are someone else: the Jews of
Jesus’ own day, or the Roman Catholics
of the time of the Reformation, or
someone else today. Luke shows a pro-
founder dimension to his Gospel, to his
Christian faith, when he does not mere-
ly repeat the parable and let it go at
that. Instead, he introduces into the
frantic conversation that goes on
through the closed door precisely the
uniquely Christian version of this false
security, the last-ditch appeal on the
part of those who are outside to the
historical presence of Jesus! “Then you
will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank
in your presence, and you taught in
our streets.’” “Come on, Lord! We
still sit at our communion tables with
you. We have more than heard, we
have studied and learned the teachings
you gave while you lived on this earth
of ours. Doesn’t that count for any-
thing?!” “I tell you, I do not know
where you come from; depart from
me, all you workers of iniquity.” By
itself, an appeal to Jesus is in no respect
different from an appeal to Abraham —
and it does not matter under what theo-
logical banner the appeal is made.

This is a frightening door, this closed
door, a profoundly unsettling door. One
can leaf through the whole Gospel of
Luke, through the whole New Testa-
ment, searching for some detour around
it, some last hinged panel in this door
to squeeze through, to relieve the final-
ity of it. And there is none. Why is
that? Because religious /^security is as
much a part of the authentic knowledge

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

123

of God as religious certainty; “not hav-
ing” is as crucial as “having”; the out-
side of the door is as important as the
inside. If we dispense with the one, the
other is gone as well, no matter how
much we protest to the contrary. And
why should that be so? Because in the
New Testament all these things we
prize: salvation, security, possession,
joy, freedom, love, peace, realization —
all are given in the form of insecurity ,
always proffered in a way that keeps
them on God’s terms and not on ours,
always in a form which probes and chal-
lenges and unsettles. The love of God
in Christ, from which of course neither
death nor life, nor height nor depth
can separate us, is either the burning
love of Paul’s righteous God who meets
us on his own terms rather than on ours
— on a cross — or else it is a pious il-
lusion. “On God’s own terms” — that is
the meaning, in the New Testament,
of God’s transcendence, and it is utter-
ly pointless to talk of Jesus of Nazareth
without it. God’s transcendence has
very little to do with how much super-
naturalism one may or may not be able
to display in one’s theology; no, it has
to do rather with the difference be-
tween God’s ways and ours. The gospel
is always given in the form of our in-
security before God, always with a door
slamming on our expectations and
claims, for it is only God’s terms that
make it authentic and sure.

That is, finally, the real reason why

authentic religious possession termi-
nates in the prayer and worship for
which we are assembled here. Not be-
cause in this chapel some inner life
must be juxtaposed to the outer life of
our studies (if your studies engage you
only outwardly, how tiresome and dull
they must be!). Why prayer? Because
authentic religious security is found
only in the God whom we cannot con-
trol, before whom we must remain
ourselves insecure, ourselves always the
petitioners. Real prayer is always prayer
to the God of a door that closes and has
an outside as well as an inside. And
why worship? Because worship is
fundamentally nothing else than this:
once again to recognize and to acknowl-
edge God’s terms in place of our own.
That is all — and yet that is everything!
“Yes, and some who are now last will
be first, and some who are first will be
last.”

Let us pray:

Heavenly Father, who hast sent thy
Son into the world to open the door to
the knowledge and love of thee, help us
to enter that door. Renew us, we be-
seech thee, by thy life-giving Spirit, by
the presence with us and to us of thine
own power to give life — so that we may
as true worshippers worship thee in
truth, as thou truly art — and so that we
may pray to thee as we ought to pray,
who knowest and searchest the hearts
of humankind. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

Praise for All Things

Sermon by Richard A. Baer, Jr.

A native of Syracuse, N.Y., Richard A.
Baer, fr., is a member of the faculty at Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y. An alumnus of Syra-
cuse University and Princeton Theological
Seminary, Dr. Baer has studied at the Uni-
versity of Tubingen and at Harvard (Ph.D.).
From 7962 to igj4 he taught at Earlham
College and the Graduate School of Religion,
Richmond , Indiana.

Text: Ephesians 5:18-20

P reaching has a close relationship to
theology, and theology is a rather
strange discipline, a discipline which is
not quite sure whether it ought to feel
at home in the modern university or
not. In fact, the role of the theologian
may be not too dissimilar to that of the
court jester in the medieval world and
later. The theologian appears to speak
foolishness at times, and one never
quite knows whether what he says is
going to be very useful or not. Yet, to
our surprise, what at first appears to be
quite useless sometimes turns out to be
the most useful of all.

Jesus had a fine sense for the dialectic
of the useful and the useless, for that
mysterious interweaving of the relevant
and the irrelevant. Consider how he
perplexed his followers by telling them
that the one who tries to save his life
will lose it, whereas the one who loses
his life for Jesus’ sake will find it.
Jesus was a master of the “eschatologi-
cal surprise,” the idea that in the end
time things may not turn out the way
we expected. In fact, he was bold
enough to suggest that the tax collec-
tors (who were collaborators with
Rome), the sinners, and the prostitutes,
might just make it into the Kingdom
of God before the righteous. That was
an eschatological surprise that was not
too popular in his day, and, of course,
he paid the consequences.

The theologian, in his apparent fool-
ishness, may risk saying things that in
the long run, by God’s grace, may even
reflect a certain wisdom. I am reminded
of that fascinating passage from the
book of Proverbs where we read that
the personified Wisdom of God was
playing and dancing before God when
God created the world:

When he established the heavens, I
was there. . . . When he marked out
the foundations of the earth, then I
was beside him, like a little child;
And I was daily his delight, dancing
before him always, rejoicing in his in-
habited world and delighting in the
sons of men.

I have often wondered what this pas-
sage means. For such a serious business
as the creation of the world, it sounds
far too frivolous. Should the author
really be talking about play and danc-
ing and a little child at such a time?

As I pondered the meaning of this
text, I thought of a comment of Robert
Frost: “A poem begins in delight and
ends in wisdom.” The word “poem,”
of course, comes from the Greek poein,
that is, to do or to make. But these are
the exact terms of the text from Prov-
erbs. God was making a world, creat-
ing a poem. There was delight and
also wisdom. But what does it all
mean ?

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

125

What I think it means is that God
created the world because he wanted to,
not out of compulsion or necessity. As
the theologians put it, he created the
world out of his own good pleasure.
And what he created he found good
and beautiful and full of delight. That
is clearly the judgment of the priestly
editor in the first chapter of Genesis.

For us today this would suggest that
the basis of our lives is not work and
achievement and the necessity of prov-
ing or justifying ourselves but rather
joy and delight. Contrary to the maxim,
“If you’re not good for something,
you’re good for nothing,” the Bible is
trying to tell us that just the fact that
we are is good. Being is valuable in it-
self. Life begins with the freeing dec-
laration, “Behold, it is very good!”

Roman Catholic novelist and literary
critic Romano Guardini knew the
meaning of this declaration when he
wrote that worship, analyzed according
to its form, is far sooner a kind of play
than it is work. It is the most non-
utilitarian of all human activities. “It
is in the highest sense the life of a
child in which everything is picture,
melody, and song. It is a pouring forth
of the sacred, God-given life of the
soul; it is a kind of holy play in which
the soul, with utter abandon learns how
to waste time for the sake of God.”
What a marvelous definition of wor-
ship, one quite foreign to our contem-
porary fascination with efficiency and
success. I might ask, parenthetically,
how many of us even know how to
waste time for each other’s sake? How
simply to be with another person be-
cause we delight in and enjoy each
other and want to while away some
time together? This, says Guardini, is
what worship is. It is simply wanting
to be in the presence of God.

About five years ago, a book came
across my desk that had another idea in
it that at first sounded equally foolish
to me. In fact when I first saw the main
thesis of the author, I thought it was al-
most indecent. He claimed that we
ought somehow to be able to learn to
praise God not just for the good things
in life, not just for what is beautiful,
what is noble, what is pleasing to us,
but that we also could learn to praise
God for the ugly things in life, for the
pain and suffering, for the disappoint-
ments and difficulties, indeed for the
evil that we see in our own existence.
This was a very strange, indeed, a
foolish idea to me when I first en-
countered it. The book, Prison to Praise ,
was written by Merlin Carothers, a
former army chaplain. This, I might
say, did not predispose me in favor of
the book, for my pacifist background
left me with more than a little bias
against the military. Furthermore,
Carothers had few of the academic cre-
dentials which at that point in my life
were still so important. Nor was the
book very well written. The style was
clumsy, and at points the author ap-
peared to contradict himself. The book
simply did not meet the standards I had
learned to expect from religious and
theological writing.

Yet, for some reason I do not yet
fully understand (call it God’s provi-
dential grace, if you will), I did not
stop reading Carothers’ book. I read
through the first six chapters, and then
when I got to the seventh and eighth
chapters, something strange and mys-
terious began to happen to me. I was
no longer aware of the author’s poor
credentials. I forgot all about his bad
grammar. I stopped being offended by
his lack of theological sophistication. I

126

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

began to listen. There was a deep quiet
inside of me. I began to learn.

In the book Carothers tells of an
army wife who came to him as chaplain
of the base and began to pour out her
troubles to him. Her alcoholic hus-
band’s drinking problem had grown
progressively worse over several years.
The woman or her children often found
him passed out on the living room
floor drunk and naked — or, worse, the
neighbors in their apartment building
found him that way in the hall. Desper-
ate, the woman saw no alternative but
to take the children and leave him.
“Whatever you say,” she concluded,
“don’t tell me to stay with him. I just
can’t do it.”

In that last comment — “Don’t tell me
to stay with him” — Chaplain Carothers
somehow heard a note of indecision and
a plea. He sensed that she still loved
her husband a great deal. At that mo-
ment, Carothers writes, he felt led to
tell her: “I don’t really care whether
you stay with him or not. I just want
you to thank God that your husband is
like he is.” The woman was incredu-
lous. How, after all, can a wife thank
God that her husband has ruined the
family and destroyed their marriage!
Finally, however, she agreed to kneel
while Chaplain Carothers prayed that
God grant her faith enough to believe
that “He is a God of love and power
who holds the universe in His hand.”
And she prayed, “I do believe.”

When Chaplain Carothers finally
called her after two weeks and asked
how things were going, she was ecstatic.
Her husband hadn’t had a drink since
the day she had prayed in Carothers’
office. “That’s wonderful,” said Caro-
thers, adding that he wanted to talk
to the man about the power of God
that was working in their lives. Puz-

zled, the woman said, “Didn’t you tell
him already?” She was sure that the
change in her husband was because the
Chaplain had talked to him, prayed
with him, and helped him to overcome
his drinking problem. “No,” replied
Carothers, “I haven’t met him yet.” It
was a miracle, said the woman. Yes,
replied Carothers, it was the power
of praise releasing God’s power to work
in the man’s life.

Perhaps one could offer a reasonably
good psychological explanation of what
happened in this case. On that particu-
lar evening, her husband might have
sensed, quite unconsciously even, that
something was different. Perhaps for
the first time in years, he felt his wife
really accepted him as he was. This
might have broken (therapists some-
times use the term “decathect”) his
need to drink — perhaps the need to be
the “naughty little boy,” or to test his
wife’s love because as a child he had
never really been sure of his parents’
love. Something had changed, and he
was healed.

An example from my own experi-
ence, which also is at least partially
intelligible in psychological terms, hap-
pened two years ago in a small prayer-
encounter group I was involved in.
During the second meeting of the
group a woman in her mid-thirties
broke down crying. “All my life,” she
said, “I have wanted to have children
of my own, and now I know that will
never be possible.” She had adopted
four children, yet she found herself
quite unable to accept her situation.
She was filled with bitterness, resent-
ment, disappointment.

After a few moments of silence, I
felt led to ask her: “Have you tried
thanking God for the fact that you are
not able to have children of your own?”

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

127

But, like Carothers’ army wife, she was
horrified at the suggestion. Still, some-
thing must have reached her, for she
was strangely silent the rest of the hour.
I decided to let the matter rest.

About half way through our meeting
the next day, with almost no introduc-
tion, the woman simply said, “I want
to try praising God in the way you
suggested.” “Thank you, God,” she
prayed, “that I will never be able to
have any children of my own.” The
healing we then witnessed was far more
dramatic and sudden than we could
have anticipated. As if a stopper had
been pulled out of a bottle, fifteen years
of resentment, bitterness, and disap-
pointment came flooding out of the
woman. She is a different person today
than when I first met her.

It is important to note that Chaplain
Carothers qualifies in several ways what
he says about praising God for pain and
suffering. First of all, he points out
that we in no way need to deny the
reality of suffering and evil. He does
not believe that these are just in our
imagination, and I agree with him.
Such a position would be dangerous
both psychologically and theologically.
Secondly, Carothers says, praising God
for all things does not make it neces-
sary to believe that God willed or sent
the evil to us. One must clearly distin-
guish between the permissive and the
directive will of God. He may permit
certain suffering and difficulties in our
lives but not necessarily send or will
them. Thirdly, in no way need we pre-
tend to li\e what has happened to us
in situations of suffering, loss, and
pain. To do so could well be a kind of
psychological suicide. Finally, praising
God for all things is not just a pious
gimmick. God cannot be manipulated
through praise to change his mind and

heal us. He is not at our beck and call
to perform religious tricks for us. The
sooner we realize that he is no celestial
bellhop the quicker we will grow to-
wards spiritual maturity.

In the four years since first reading
Carothers’ book, I have tried to apply
his teachings in my own life. The re-
sults have surprised me. There have
been areas in my life where there was
bitterness, where there was hostility and
resentment. There were areas where I
had not been able to accept myself, no
matter how hard I had tried, nor could
I accept others fully. But when I
stopped trying to do these things and
simply started thanking God for myself
just as I was and for others just as they
were, some very beautiful things began
to happen.

These experiences led me to begin
to explore the subject of praising God
for all things in a more systematic and
scholarly fashion. Could I find such an
emphasis, for instance, in the Bible or
in the theological literature and devo-
tional writings of the church?

I must admit that the direct Biblical
evidence that can be cited in support of
the notion of praising God for all things
is scanty. Paul writes in Ephesians 5:18-
20, “Be filled with the Spirit, addressing
one another in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, . . . always and for
everything giving thanks in the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the
Father.” I Thessalonians 5:18 can be
translated as in the R.S.V., “Give
thanks in all circumstances,” but the
K.J.V. is probably a better rendering
of the original Greek with its, “In ev-
erything give thanks.” Paul thanks God
for his weakness, including his puzzling
“thorn in the flesh” (II Cor. 12:1-10),
for he believes that even his weakness
will work to the greater glory of God.

128

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

Finally, we might note Romans 8:28,
which, at least, might help establish a
theological framework for the theme of
praise for all things. I think it is best
translated: “We know that God works
everything for good with those who
love him, with those who are called
according to his purpose.”

The theme is more clearly present in
Christian devotional and theological
writings. In his second book, Power in
Praise, Carothers cites a number of ex-
amples. Eighteenth century English
clergyman William Law, for instance,
said: “If anyone could tell you the
shortest, surest way to all happiness and
perfection, he must tell you to make it
a rule to yourself to thank and praise
God for everything that happens to you.
For it is certain that whatever seeming
calamity happens to you, if you thank
and praise God for it, you turn it into a
blessing.” Helen Keller writes, “I thank
God for my handicaps, for through
them I have found myself, my work
and my God.” John Wesley in his
Notes on the New Testament writes:
“Thanksgiving is inseparable from true
prayer: it is almost essentially connect-
ed with it. He that always prays is ever
giving praise, whether in ease or pain,
both for prosperity and for the greatest
adversity. He blesses God for all things,
looks on them as coming from him,
and receives them only for his sake; not
choosing nor refusing, liking nor dis-
liking anything, but only as it is agree-
able or disagreeable to his perfect will.”
The theme of praise for all things
runs through poetry, philosophy, and
literature, as well. The heroine in Leon
Bloy’s late nineteenth century novel
The Woman Who Was Poor, utters
these amazing words, “Everything that
happens, is something to be adored.”
Her words were not the shallow utter-

ance of someone who had led an easy
and sheltered life, for she had suffered
greatly and known the loss of almost
everyone and everything near and dear
to her. Out of context, her words would
have sounded obscene to me, but I re-
served judgment.

Then came another surprise: Nie-
tzsche, of all people, in his Will to
Power, wrote: “If it be granted that we
say Yea to a single moment, then in so
doing we have said Yea not only to
ourselves, but to all existence.” In his
Posthumous Notes, he speaks even
more directly: “To have joy in any-
thing, one must approve everything.”
I also discovered some beautiful pas-
sages in the poetry of Rainer Maria
Rilke, as in these haunting lines from
the tenth of his Duino Elegies:

Someday, emerging at last from this
terrifying vision, may I burst into
jubilant praise to assenting Angels!
May not even one of the clear-struck
keys of the heart fail to respond
through alighting on slack or
doubtful or rending strings! May a
new-found splendour appear in my
streaming face! May inconspicuous
Weeping flower! How dear you will
be to me then, you Nights of Afflic-
tion! Oh, why did I not, inconsolable
sisters, more bendingly kneel to re-
ceive you, more loosely surrender my-
self to your loosened hair? We wasters
of sorrows! How we stare away into
sad endurance beyond them, trying to
foresee their end! Whereas they are
nothing else than our winter foliage,
our sombre evergreen, one of the sea-
sons of our interior year, — not only
season — they’re also place, settlement,
camp, soil, dwelling.

So there I was, a theologian by train-
ing, caught up in a theme that made

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

129

little sense to me analytically but a great
deal of sense existentially, personally.
Moreover, I now had found that it was
not an uncommon idea in religious and
secular literature. So I began to ask
myself: What does it really mean?
What are the objections to integrating
these ideas into my total experience?

It might be objected that praising
God for all things in effect is a refusal
to live with the New Testament ten-
sion between the cross and resurrection.
Would not such a position cheapen
grace, docetize the God-forsakenness of
the cross, de-eschatologize hope? Does
it not trivialize human suffering by
too quickly letting it be swallowed up
in a theology of glory? Am I not ad-
vocating a religion of sight rather than
faith, confidence without struggle, con-
viction without paradox? Do I not for-
get that the book of Job is also a part
of the Scriptures and that Christian
mystics refer to the dark night of the
soul as well as to praise and thanks-
giving? These are all fair objections
and cannot be avoided.

Actually, I see much danger in prais-
ing God for all things if one does not
also deal realistically with the anger
and resentment one experiences. On a
psychological level, there is an inner
process one may have to go through by
which an initial rejection of some event
or an initial failure to see its point is
worked through to a final acceptance
and affirmation. If the cross — in one
sense a tragedy and an ugly thing — is
the very “font of every blessing,” then
the most unpromising aspects of a per-
son’s past can likewise be channels of
blessings. But the individual may need
to wrestle with the event after the fash-
ion of Job or of Jesus in Gethsemane.
Or if a person is not yet ready to cope
with the conditions under which a

given part of his life will bless him, he
may have to leave it and go into exile,
like Jacob. There he may prosper and
grow to the point where he is ready to
return. Even then, he may have to
wrestle with this part of the past, and,
in effect, say with Jacob, “I will not let
you go, unless you bless me (Gen.
32:26).” Blessing could be seen as the
total energy at all levels which comes
to one as he accepts larger and larger
wholes of self, world, and God into
himself.

Praise, as I have presented it, would
appear to short-cut this psychological
process of wrestling through a prob-
lem, and perhaps in a certain sense it
does. It could be viewed as an act of
sheer faith, an “as if” procedure which
makes it possible to apprehend what
is not present tangibly. The danger
would be that it could lead one into a
fantasy world, violating the dynamics
by which actual transformation occurs.
On the other hand, there is much evi-
dence that in the realm of spiritual
growth and healing, ordinary time de-
terminants may not be quite relevant.
Lasting change may come without the
“ordinary” wrestling and working
through of the particular difficulty. A
more honest approach might even dare
admit that what actually happens even
in the more usual psychological “work-
ing through” of a problem remains
largely a mystery even to the trained
therapist. In successful therapy mo-
ments of critical change often possess a
quality of timelessness about them, not
unlike what Mircea Eliade and others
mean when they refer to “eternal time.”
There may be long days of preparation,
but the actual “new birth,” the emer-
gence of a new Gestalt, may come sud-
denly, dramatically.

Working through difficult experi-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

130

ences from one’s past life may also
involve what some writers refer to as
“the New Testament teaching on uni-
lateral forgiveness,” namely that God
calls the Christian to forgive those who
harm him even if they neither ask for
nor deserve forgiveness (the essential
transaction in such a case is between
the wronged individual and God). Or
it may demand dealing with anger
(especially intense, disproportionate
anger) in the presence of God before
expressing it (if at all) to the person
who has committed the offense. The
important thing is that anger be dealt
with and not repressed, yet dealt with
in such a way as not to create further
alienation with the offending party.

Finally, praising God for all things —
as I have already noted — does not grant
one immunity from suffering and pain.
Rather it is a placing of the outcome of
one’s life in God’s hands, a refusal to
demand that God justify himself to
man, a willingness to live through the
suffering and pain without accusing
God. One can feel God-forsaken and
still praise God!

Yet another objection might be raised
against a theology of praise. An indi-
vidual may well find the faith to praise
God for everything, the good and evil, in
his life, but does not this somehow im-
ply a signal lack of seriousness in deal-
ing with evil? Is not this teaching on
praising God for all things at odds with
the pervasive Biblical emphasis on jus-
tice? Will it not cause us to lose interest
in our commitment to improve society,
to eliminate suffering and injustice?
Perhaps this kind of teaching is more
compatible with Taoism or Zen Bud-
dhism than with Judaism and Chris-
tianity. The statements “Everything
that happens is something to be adored,”
or “To have joy in anything, one must

approve everything” are, from one per-
spective, utterly scandalous. They cut
right across the whole biblical emphasis
on justice and on taking seriously the
needs of the poor, the homeless, the
orphan and widow.

From another perspective, however,
I have come to believe that they express
a profound understanding of life, one
which Taoists and Zen Buddhists ap-
preciate more easily than Christians and
Jews. There is a dimension of human
existence where God calls us to stop
judging, to go beyond simple assess-
ments of good and evil, beyond our
need to label, to criticize, to compare.
To be sure, evil still exists, although it
is not real in the same sense that God is
real, but somehow we must learn that
in the mystery of God’s righteousness,
even darkness and suffering have their
place in the total drama of the world
coming to birth. In learning the lesson
of praise for all things, I believe we will
become less self-righteous, less attracted
to that kind of absolutist piety that is
willing to crush others in the process of
saving the world. Our crusading men-
tality will be tempered by the realiza-
tion that ultimately the battle is not
ours, but God’s. We will be more will-
ing to let our agenda be set by God’s
caring for the world, rather than by the
evil and threatening circumstances that
we see all about us. Our eyes will be on
Him and His saving presence in the
world — on the cross, the resurrection,
and the second coming of Christ, rather
than on the empires of this world,
which are, in principle, already de-
feated, and even in their power and
arrogance, already perishing.

The answer to the world’s suffering is
not for us consciously to take this suf-
fering into ourselves. There may be
more than a little hubris in our think-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

ing that we could do this in any case.
The Bible has a lot to say about vicar-
ious suffering, and there are times when
God indeed calls us to suffer for others.
But this is not a self-appointed suffer-
ing. It is not something which we in
our own self-righteousness choose to do
for someone else. It is not something
we look for. We share in the sufferings
of Christ. We do not seek them out
ourselves.

The kind of praise, I am talking
about, then, is no Pollyanna optimism.
It is no stoic denial of the suffering of
the world. It need not pretend that
Dachau and Auschwitz or the napaim-
ing of Vietnamese children never hap-
pened. In fact, most of the people I
know who have broken through to
genuine and lasting praise in their lives
are people who have suffered deeply,
people who have known evil, encoun-
tered it directly and brutally, and yet
somehow have gone beyond the impact
of that evil to quiet acceptance. The
reason Christians and the Jews can
speak so freely about praise without
becoming callous and indifferent to the
sufferings of the world, is that they
know through their own traditions,
through the image of the suffering
servant in Judaism and through the
reality of the crucifixion in Christianity,
what suffering means.

Thus we do not have to become in-
different to the cries of little children
and to the pangs of nature brutalized
because of man’s greed and indiffer-
ence. We need not ignore the cries of
third world mothers who watch their
children’s bodies and minds twisted by
hunger and malnutrition, for biblical
religion well knows the meaning of
suffering. Christianity is rooted in the
cross, as well as in the resurrection.

I have come to believe that God is

131

precisely the one who always remem-
bers the good and transforms the evil in
our lives. Whenever there is beauty,
truth, nobility, strength, courage, hope,
love, kindness, freedom, God remem-
bers these and somehow writes them
into the very fabric of the universe. But
the evil he “forgets.” The metaphor is
clumsy, but we might say that God is
“the great cosmic garbage disposal,” or,
if you want an ecologically better meta-
phor, “the great compost pile of the
universe.”

Now, what do I mean? What I think
the New Testament writers are trying
to say through the doctrine of the cross,
is that God in Christ always takes the
suffering, the pain, the sin, the loneli-
ness, and the hurt of human existence
back into himself and through what
one writer has called “the alchemy of
grace,” transforms these — if we will let
him — into the possibility of new life,
into the seedbed of the future. The suf-
fering and the pain and the disappoint-
ment become the fertilizer, the manure
for the future. Out of the debris and
ashes of human sin and suffering, God
makes it possible for life to blossom
again. He is the great cosmic garbage
disposal, the great compost pile of the
universe, and if we will give him back
our sin and our suffering — indeed if
we can even learn to praise Him for
permitting these things in our lives — I
believe we will see miracles happen.

But can we really believe in a God
who uses broken bodies and broken
minds, the cries of innocent children,
lamenting mothers, and bereaved fa-
thers simply as the seedbed of the fu-
ture? No, I think not, and that is not
really what I am suggesting. At least
7 could not believe in that kind of God.
What I am trying to say is this: God is
able to use the very things that seem

132

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

counter to His purpose, the very things
which He hates with a perfect hatred —
he is able to use even these things to
bring about goodness and beauty. If we
will give our suffering and pain back
to God in praise, he is somehow able
to use them to bring about new life.

It is at this point that we finally
come face to face with the Biblical af-
firmation of resurrection and the life to
come. I believe Kant was right — some
kind of immortality is a necessity for
the moral life. For myself, if I did not
believe that the napalmed children, the
mongoloid babies, the six million Jews
of the holocaust will yet somehow
know life in all its fullness, I would
find it very hard to praise God.

And so we dare to praise. We even
dare to praise God for the pain and
suffering of the world. Will it work?
In my own life it has made a great
difference. But in one sense I do not
care whether it works or not, for I
believe we are first of all called to faith-
fulness rather than to effectiveness. And
perhaps in the long run, in the mercy
of God, the life of faithfulness and the
foolishness of commitment to a cruci-
fied messiah will turn out to be the
only true wisdom. That is the risk of
faith. That is the hope of the resur-
rection.

Thomas Merton, in New Seeds of
Contemplation , writes this:

What is serious to men is often trivial
in the sight of God. What in God
might appear to us as “play” is per-
haps what he himself takes most
seriously. At any rate the Lord plays
and diverts Himself in the garden of
his creation, and if we could let go of
our own obsession with what we
think is the meaning of it all, we

might be able to hear His call and
follow Him in His mysterious, cosmic
dance. We do not have to go very far
to catch echoes of that game, and of
that dancing. When we are alone on
a starlit night; when by chance we
see the migrating birds in autumn
descending on a grove of junipers to
rest and eat; when we see children in
a moment when they are really chil-
dren; when we know love in our own
hearts; or when, like the Japanese
poet Basho we hear an old frog land
in a quiet pond with a solitary splash
— at such times the awakening, the
turning inside out of all values, the
“newness,” the emptiness and purity
of vision that make themselves evi-
dent, provide a glimpse of the cosmic
dance.

For the world and time are the dance
of the Lord in emptiness. The silence
of the spheres is the music of a wed-
ding feast. The more we persist in
misunderstanding the phenomena of
life, the more we analyze them out
into strange finalities and complex
purposes of our own, the more we
involve ourselves in sadness, absurd-
ity, and despair. But it does not
matter much, because no despair of
ours can alter the reality of things, or
stain the joy of the cosmic dance
which is always there. Indeed, we are
in the midst of it, and it is in the
midst of us, for it beats in our very
blood, whether we want it to or not.

Yet the fact remains that we are in-
vited to forget ourselves on purpose,
cast our awful solemnity to the winds
and join in the general dance.

And Rainer Maria Rilke writes:

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

133

Tell us, poet, what is it you do? —

I praise.

But the deadly and the monstrous
things, how can you bear them?

I praise.

But even what is nameless, what is
anonymous, how can you call upon

it? — t

i praise.

What right have you to be true in
every disguise, beneath every mask?

I praise.

And how is it that both calm and
violent things, like star and storm,
know you for their own? —

because I praise.

That Board Meeting at
Corinth

Sermon on Christian Stewardship
of Money

by Carl W. Hensley

I t was my good fortune recently to
discover an original first-century letter
written by a member of the First Chris-
tian Church at Corinth to the Apostle
Paul. Its contents indicate that it was a
reply to Paul’s second letter to the
Corinthian Church and that its basic
concern was with Paul’s directions re-
garding the collection of money for
destitute Christians in Jerusalem. It
seems that Paul’s request for the Corin-
thians to give more money came at the
time they were planning their annual
financial campaign. This caused quite
a lot of discussion and controversy in
the Finance Committee meetings, and
the discussion reached a fever pitch in
one particular Board Meeting. The
letter I found was written by Claudius,
Chairman of the Finance Committee,
and gave Paul the details of the discus-
sion in what was euphemistically re-
ferred to as “That Board Meeting.” I
would like to share the letter with you.

First Christian Church
1022 First Avenue South
Corinth, Greece
A.D.55

Dear Paul,

It is with mixed feelings that I write
this letter. I’ve always considered you a
good friend and have valued your ad-
vice. However, I must tell you that
your recent letter created a caustic con-
troversy in our church, especially in one
of our board meetings. As Chairman of

The Rev. Carl W. Hensley is Auxiliary
Professor of Preaching at Bethel Seminary,
St. Paul, Minnesota.

the Finance Committee, I am writing
to give you a report, and as a friend I
am writing for guidance for our coming
Financial Campaign.

After your letter was read in that
Board Meeting, some cried, “Money,
money — that’s all these ministers talk
about. Why don’t they stick to spiritual
matters?” Others objected to your con-
stant reminders that we had made a
pledge to help the Jerusalem Christians
and had not yet completed collecting
the pledge. Not all were negative com-
ments. Some felt that you were more
interested in our motivation than our
money and that you were trying to tell
us that a proper concept and practice
of giving would deepen our Christian
lives. Well, one thing led to another,
and that Board Meeting finally focused
on a debate on motives for giving our
money. That focus pleased me (in spite
of occasional temper flare-ups) because
I feel that proper motivation is abso-
lutely essential to success in a church
financial campaign and particularly im-
portant for the development of indi-
vidual Christian lives.

The first man to speak, as usual, was
Crispus. He insisted that we stress that
Christians should give because God
commands that we give. That old rascal
always thinks in terms of doing only
what he has to do. Of course, you gave
him some support in Second Corin-
thians 9:13, when you wrote that our
obedience would glorify God. His son,

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

135

a chip off the old block, added fuel to
his fire by pointing out that there are
over 1,000 references to material pos-
sessions in the Bible and that sixteen of
Jesus’ thirty-eight parables are clearly
concerned with the proper management
of one’s possessions. He quickly pointed
out that Jesus said in the Sermon on the
Mount that only those who do the will
of God will enter the kingdom of
heaven (Mt. 7:21), and for good meas-
ure quoted Jesus’ statement, “Every-
one to whom much is given, of him
will much be required” (Luke 12:48).

Now, Paul, don’t get me wrong. I
realize as well as the next man that
allegiance to Christ means that we must
obey God’s commands and that giving
our money is one of his demands. But I
wonder if this is really an adequate
motive. If we aren’t careful, this motive
can become a negative force. Since God
demands that I give, I may come to re-
gard my giving as little more than pay-
ing my membership dues like those
required by the Rotary and Lions
Clubs. Or, I may end up paying God
much like I pay the Roman I.R.S. —
out of duty but with reluctance. It can
be like the time my Dad gave me my
first allowance. Every week he gave it
to me, but he also required me to put
part of it in a bank. So, I saved regu-
larly because it was commanded, but
I didn’t enjoy it much. So, Paul, I guess
old Crispus is right about command as
a motive, but only in part. Certainly it
isn’t the most adequate motive.

Well, you know how some of our
people get along here. You once wrote
to scold us about our quarrelsome at-
titudes. No sooner had Crispus set forth
his notion of the proper motive for giv-
ing than guess who tried to shout him
down. Eutychus was frothing at the
mouth at what he called “the crazy

concoction of Crispus.” That really
heated up that old Board Meeting.
Eutychus stood up and proudly pro-
claimed that if Crispus and his shallow-
headed son had any scriptural sense,
they would know that the proper mo-
tive for giving is to give because God
will bless the giver. He was quick to
quote you, Paul, for after all you did
write that “he who sows sparingly will
also reap sparingly, and he who sows
bountifully will also reap bountifully”
(2 Cor. 9:6). One of the farmers at the
meeting pointed out that this is a sound
law of nature. He said that he skimped
on seed in sowing his fields one year
and had a sparse harvest, but that the
harvest was always more abundant
when he sowed generously. His neigh-
bor pointed out that his spring became
stopped-up once so that it barely gave
forth its supply of sweet water, and
before long it stagnated. Then, when
he cleaned it out so that the spring
could give generously, it became sweet
and free-flowing again.

Although Crispus and some of his
supporters were fuming at Eutychus, no
one present could deny that the Bible
clearly demonstrates that God does
bless those who give. When the prophet
Elijah fled from Israel because of fam-
ine and found refuge with a widow in
Sidon, God blessed both of them. I
remember that the woman had only
enough grain and oil left to prepare one
more meager meal for her son and her-
self and then succumb to starvation.
But when she obeyed God and made a
meal for God’s prophet first, God
blessed her and caused her oil and
grain to last and last until the drought
ended (I Kings 17:8-16). No wonder
Jesus promised, “Give, and it will be
given to you; good measure, pressed
down, shaken together, running over,

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

136

will be put into your lap” (Lk. 6:38).
I guess that is why you told us in your
letter that “you will be enriched in
every way for great generosity” (2
Cor. 9:11).

As I sat in that Board Meeting listen-
ing, I had to agree that giving our
money because God will bless us is a
powerful motive. On the other hand, I
have some reservations here as with the
first motive. This can become a subtle,
self-seeking motive. If we give only in
order to get, we soon will think of
God’s blessings as wages for our faith-
fulness. It reminds me of a sign that I
saw in a motel room, “Don’t smoke in
bed. The ashes you spill may be your
own.” Or of the poster promoting the
local cancer contribution campaign
whose slogan reads, “Give to conquer
cancer because you may be the next
victim.” This motive has led more than
one church member to regard God as
the great vending machine of the uni-
verse. Put in your quarter, push the
button, and receive full return. I decid-
ed that Eutychus was about as right as
Crispus. Both command and receiving
blessings are motives for giving, but by
themselves they seem to lack some-
thing.

By now, everybody in that Board
Meeting was trying to talk at the same
time. Songster, the Chairman, was hav-
ing “a devil of a time” (oops! pardon
the expression) getting the board mem-
bers to follow Aristotle’s Rules of Parlia-
mentary Procedure. He finally was able
to gavel the meeting to some semblance
of order and recognized Demetrius
next. Now, if ever there were a practi-
cal man, it has to be Demetrius. So,
as you might guess, he opened his re-
marks to the Board with, “Now, men,
let’s be practical about this thing. If
you just stop to think about it, you

will realize that the best motive for
giving money is to support the church
budget.” A few groans rose around the
room, and someone muttered, “Not
again! He’s played that same tune for
years.”

Most of the murmuring was quieted
when our Associate Minister, Quartus,
pointed out that we are now a down-
town church. Not many of our mem-
bers live in the neighborhood, and those
who do live nearby don’t have as much
money to give. Most of our members
live in the suburbs, some have joined
churches where they live, and several
others have moved away completely.
It is difficult to meet our budget when
people don’t give generously and regu-
larly. “Moreover,” said Quartus, “in-
flation is taking its toll” (as if he had
to remind us). “The candle makers’
strike forced up the price of candles for
lighting, and olive oil for those new-
fangled lamps has to be imported at
excessive costs. The wood dealers keep
raising prices so that heating is out-
rageous.” Gaius interrupted Quartus at
this point. “Everybody knows that our
ministers’ salaries have increased sharp-
ly,” he asserted. “Why, when Reverend
Stephanas was our minister, he didn’t
ask for nearly as much money as Dr.
Fortunatus is getting; and when Paul
first started our church, he supported
himself by making tents. I tell you, the
good old days were better.” Paul, you
were quite right when in your first let-
ter to us you censured us for our quar-
reling and strife. I wish that Gaius and
a few others would heed your admoni-
tion that the minister who plants
Christ’s seeds and the minister who
waters are nothing, but the only one
who really matters is God who gives
the growth (I Cor. 3:6). Gaius often
lets us know that he hasn’t given an

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

137

offering since Dr. Fortunatus has been
our minister. With that kind of shallow
dedication, we cannot hope for anything
but a budget deficit.

More members need to recognize the
necessity of giving to meet the budget.
As Chairman of Finance I have said
it many times from our pulpit: The
budget is one index of the spiritual
health of our church. Programs must
be maintained, and our members must
do it. Non-members certainly can’t be
expected to give to meet our budget!
However, like the other motives men-
tioned, this motive for giving can also
become so impersonal. Giving merely
to meet the budget can be about as
exciting as putting quarters in a park-
ing meter when you park your chariot
on the Nicolaitan Mall downtown.

By this time that Board Meeting was
dragging into the late hours of the
night. People were weary, and nerves
were on edge. I was ready to move that
we adjourn when Dionysius asked to
speak. You probably remember Diony-
sius well since he was one of your first
converts at Athens. He moved to Cor-
inth some time ago and immediately
transferred his church membership. He
is such a kind, considerate Christian
gentleman. He is probably the most re-
spected member of our church. So,
those who had been arguing about
various motives gave him their atten-
tion.

“Gentlemen,” he said courteously,
“there are some aspects of Paul’s letter
that we have overlooked. I was im-
pressed that he used the Macedonian
Christians as examples for us. We
know, as Paul reminds us, that they
are financially poor — much more eco-
nomically depressed than we are. Yet,
Paul says that their giving ‘overflowed
in a wealth of liberality’ and that they

gave ‘beyond their means.’ Why, they
even begged Paul earnestly for the
favor of giving (2 Cor. 8:3-4). Why?
What was their motive? Maybe Paul
captured the proper motive in 9:15,
‘Thanks be to God for his inexpressible
gift.’”

As Dionysius said this, it sent my
thoughts back to John 3:16, “For God
so loved the world that he gave his
only Son.” If God loves us to that ex-
tent, then our commitment to him
ought to be a love that expresses itself
in generous giving. Dionysius caught
my attention again as he pointed out
that you stressed in 8:5 that the Mace-
donians gave themselves to the Lord
first. Giving oneself to God completely
is the fundamental response to God’s
love expressed in Christ. Said Diony-
sius firmly but graciously, “Giving self
to God first is the heart of Christian
giving. Then, generous giving of one’s
money is an expression of how com-
pletely God has won the person’s
heart.”

I remember attending a Regional
Convention held at Central Christian
Church in Troy where my good friend
Corax ministers. I was sitting with his
wife and five-year-old son, Tisias, dur-
ing Sunday morning worship. Corax
had given Tisias a small amount of
change to carry in his toga pocket.
When offering time came, he whispered
to his mother that he wanted to give
his money in the offering. He took an
offering envelope from the pew holder,
but then looked perplexed. Printed on
the envelope were names of various
Christian endeavors and institutions to
which givers could designate their of-
ferings. His mother tried to explain
that he could give to the general fund,
to the Greek Theological Seminary, to
the Apostle Paul Prison Fund, etc. In

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

138

a somewhat exasperated tone, Tisias
replied, “But, Mom, I just want to give
my money to God.” In his own simple
five-year-old way, Tisias captured the
essential motive for a Christian to give
his money.

“First we give ourselves to God,”
Dionysius was saying as my attention
came back from the Regional Assembly
to that Board Meeting, “and then giv-
ing our money flows naturally and gen-
erously out of that commitment.” That
reminded me of a statement made by
one of the speakers at the Regional
Meeting. I believe it was that college
professor who taught the combined
adult classes in Sunday School. He said
that “to give and keep on giving is the
essential nature of love for God. Love
can never be tight-fisted, appeal-orient-
ed, or issue centered. It is impelled by
the essential character of its being to
share, to sacrifice, to give generously.
A Christian’s giving can never be an
occasional performance. It must always
be a normal, steady, and increasing out-
flow of life in God.”

By this time, Paul, Dionysius was
calling our attention to your statement
that Jesus himself is our example. Be-
cause Jesus gave himself totally to God
first, he gave up all of his heavenly
riches and became humanly poor for
our sakes (2 Cor. 8:9). Jesus’ commit-
ment and love for God motivated him
to give up his power for impotence, his
dignity for ignominy, and his prestige
and privilege for persecution and cru-
cifixion. Love for this Lord certainly
would put our giving on a proper plain.

Well, Paul, it was Dionysius who set
us straight in that Board Meeting. He
gave me insights that will help me and
my Committee to shape our approach
to the people this year. We must help

church members to see that stewardship
is not a clever scheme to raise money.
Rather, they must see that it is a path-
way to producing solid Christian char-
acter and that character committed to
Christ is more crucial than cash. I am
convinced that our church has not
reached the saturation point in what we
are capable of giving, but I am also
convinced that we have reached the
saturation point in what we will give
in our present stage of commitment.
The remedy is not command, reward,
or budget appeals. The remedy is con-
version to God that brings the rule of
Christ to the center of our lives. When
we give ourselves to Christ first, then
we will give our money as never before.

Paul, I want our people to experi-
ence the joy of a love that leads them
to commit 10% of their incomes to
God. After all, tithing is a firm biblical
guide to giving. I want them to give
their lives to God so that their love for
Him will motivate them to give 10%
off of the top and not give Him left-
overs and scraps.

Well, old friend, this has been a
long, rambling letter, but I wanted
you to know all about that old Board
Meeting. If you still have your sense of
humor after struggling through this
epistle, maybe you can appreciate a
comic strip that appeared in the Co-
rinthian Star and Tribune the other
day. Pogo the possum was fishing, and
a duck came by. “Howdy, Pogo,” he
says, “is you seed my cousin? He’s
migratin’ north by kiddie car.” “A duck
migratin’ by kiddie car?” quizzes Pogo.
“Yep. He’s afeared to fly high; he gets
afeared he might fall off.” Pogo asks,
“Why doesn’t he swim?” “He gets
seasick.” Then Pogo makes an astute
observation for a possum, “All I can

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

139

say is that when he decided to be a
duck, he picked the wrong business.”
Paul, I guess that if a Christian is
not willing to give God his life first and
then give generously at least 10% of his

income out of that love, he is like a
duck migrating north in a kiddie car —
he picked the wrong business.

Your Friend in Christ,
Claudius

Return from Captivity:
New Steps for the
Urban Church

Sermon by Roderic P. Frohman

Text: Ezra 7:11-14.

W here were you this past Tuesday
at 1 :oo p.m. Mountain Daylight
Time? This past Tuesday, I stood on
the summit of Longs Peak in the Rocky
Mountains, 14,256 feet above sea level.
The climb and the view was the most
spectacular of my hiking history. The
view from 14,000 feet is a vista most
people see only from an airplane. To
the southeast, seventy miles away, I
could see the tiny skyscrapers of Den-
ver. To the north, all the way into
Wyoming. To the west, half way to
Utah. And below me in a 2500-foot
vertical drop was the cobalt blue Chasm
Lake.

It is very hard to describe the feeling
of exhilaration, the impression of tri-
umph, the perspective, the sense of hav-
ing your entire system cleaned. Time
and time again as I contemplated the
scene, the following statement would
cross my mind: “In the wilderness is
the preservation of the world.” I did
feel somewhat preserved and renewed.
Standing there on top of that moun-
tain peak, I could not see the “crossings
of the crowded ways of life,” nor could
I hear “the cries of race and clan.” I
could hear only the roar of the wind,
see the beauty of the wilderness, and
feel the absolute majesty of it all.

But because I have lived in the city

A native of Detroit, the Rev. Roderic
P. Frohman, is minister of the First Presby-
terian Church, Gary , Indiana. An alumnus of
the University of California at Berkeley and
Princeton Theological Seminary (M.Div.),
Mr. Frohman has a friend who submitted this
sermon to your editor with this comment:
“Frohman acquired at Princeton that new
spirit of proclamation — a commitment to
preparation of sermons that inform, define,
and relate the biblical elan to the contempo-
rary ennui."

Nehemiah 1 :i- 2 :io

since I was nine years old, I always find
myself comparing the city with the
wilderness. Why can’t we say, “In the
city is the preservation of the world”?
I have been disturbed lately with very
negative attitudes many folks have to-
ward the city. Everyone gripes about
the city. The complaints are true and
numerous: bad streets, bad housing,
bad schools, bad transportation, high
taxes, high cost of living, muggings,
rapes, robberies. Sound familiar? You
bet, and not only are the comments
made about city services, or the lack
thereof, but the urban church gets
thrown in there, too. “I don’t want to
go there to worship,” you may have
heard someone exclaim. “I get depressed
because the sanctuary is two thirds
empty.” Or, “Old First has no future
because they keep digging into the en-
dowment to pay the heating bill.”
Or, “All those kids that hang out on
the steps make me nervous.” Or, “How
come the doors are always locked? I
thought churches were supposed to be
open.” Consequently the statement, “In
the city is the preservation of the
world,” seems to be the height of folly.

Why does it seem to be folly? Be-
cause we are living in a time of captiv-
ity. We, people of the city, have been
taken into a mental and spiritual cap-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

141

tivity which rivals the Babylonian cap-
tivity of the Hebrew people. The litany
I have just recited about the woes of
cities and churches is the same sad
song we read in Psalm 137. “By the
waters of Babylon we sat down and
wept when we remembered Zion.
There on the willow trees we hung our
harps, and our captors demanded of us
songs saying, ‘Sing to us one of the
Songs of Zion.’ ”

How were we captured? First of all,
we have been captured because the
battle for the city has been loud and
long. We have suffered battle fatigue.
Secondly, we have been captured be-
cause we have not been equipped with
the proper tactics to fight the battle.

(i)

The battle for us began in the 1950’s
when the first signs of battle fatigue
began to take place. The Princeton so-
ciologist, Gibson Winter, has appropri-
ately named this fatigue “the suburban
captivity of the churches,” in which
there was a rapid exit from the cities
in the 1950’s and 1960’s to surrounding
suburbs spurred on by the ready avail-
ability of FHA capital after the war.
There was an attempted renaissance of
the city during the Great Society era,
but incredible mismanagement of funds
by contractors with the government led
to wholesale breakdown of urban re-
construction. Urban renewal brought
some reconstruction, but it brought ur-
ban destruction and forced relocation of
which the vast empty lots of our central
cities testify. The beginning of the
Nixon era first brought the urban policy
of benign neglect of Daniel Moynihan
and ended with the convulsive exit
policies of the attempted dismantling
of HUD and OEO. If the policies of
the public sector were not enough, the

private sector financing of commercial
and residential investment dried up.
We know this withdrawal of invest-
ment dollars as “redlining.”

The Church had its own battle tactics
to save the city, but soon found itself
out-classed and out-gunned by the prin-
cipalities and powers that be. Many
churches followed in the social service
tradition of the Detroit Industrial Mis-
sion and other urban models which pro-
vided a needed and valuable style of
urban ministry of the 1950’s and early
1960’s. As the Civil Rights Movement
moved north and the Vietnam War
developed, urban reconstruction tactics
by churches were characterized by a
wholesale adoption of the politics and
tactics of protest.

As an almost unconscious religious
affirmation of Lyndon Johnson’s Great
Society, Harvey Cox wrote Secular City
and Gibson Winter wrote The New
Creation as Metropolis to give Chris-
tians some theological ammunition for
urban existence. Well, scarcely was the
ink dry on the manuscripts when our
major cities erupted in the long hot
summer of 1967 and 1968. Black rage
was generated against the very institu-
tions celebrated by Cox and Winter.
From the cauldrons of the long hot
summers were forged many exclusivist
theologies of liberation, some of which
have been useful and some of which
have turned into a bitter narrowness of
the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Since the early 1970’s we find our-
selves in a captivity of fatigue and
broken spirits brought upon partly by
the intensity of combating urban life
and partly because of the worn out
tactics of the protest used in that battle.
Gone are the days of glamorous urban
ministry. We find ourselves mocked by
the memories of the “good old days”

142

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

as we are tormented by the captivity
of nostalgia. “Why can’t things be like
they used to be,” we sigh. This is the
biblical equivalent of capitulating to
“sing to us one of the Songs of Zion.”

(“)

How Can We Return from Our
Captivity? How Do We Come out of
Exile?

In this time of captivity, we turn
again to the scriptures and are amazed
to find people of faith who have actual-
ly been lower than we are, yet who have
returned from captivity to re-establish
themselves and their faith. There were
two ancient people whose role in re-
building the nation of Israel are the
example for city churches to follow to-
day. They are Ezra and Nehemiah.

Nehemiah was the cupbearer for
King Artaxerxes; Ezra was a priest and
scribe in exile in Babylon. What Ne-
hemiah did for the body politic of
Judaism, Ezra did for the soul. In the
Old Testament, understanding of faith,
the two parts of nurture and mission,
Ezra and Nehemiah, are inseparable.
And so must be our understanding of
urban ministry in the last quarter of
the 20th century.

Nehemiah’s mission was to rebuild
the walls and political structures of a
fallen Israel. Like Joseph, the cupbearer
to the Egyptian Pharaoh, Nehemiah
felt very intensely about the land of his
forefathers. When he heard of the con-
dition of his kinsmen in their life
amidst the fire-ruined rubble of Neb-
uchadnezzar’s urban renewal program,
he wept and mourned for days as
many of us have mourned the slow
strangulation death of many of our
own cities. But Nehemiah was not con-
tent to sing the songs of Zion in Baby-
lon. He requested the king send him
back across the windswept grasslands

of the fertile crescent to Jerusalem “to
the city and graves of my fathers that
I may rebuild it.” Artaxerxes sent him
as the governor of the Babylonian prov-
ince of Judah in 444 B.C. There in Jeru-
salem he found the city in rubble and
the political and religious structures in-
effective and oppressive. The conditions
are catalogues in the Book of Malachi.
The record of Nehemiah is impressive.
There he discreetly used his authority
as Governor; he re-wrote many of the
civil laws for the city; and he took
a housing census and began an urban
housing program. He treated with jus-
tice the needs of the destitute of the
city; he called a general meeting of
Jerusalem residents and informed them
of his intentions to rebuild the walls of
the City; and then went about his
work, politely listening to the gripers,
foot-draggers and opposers of progress
and then ignoring them when they
needed to be ignored.

Nehemiah was not alone in his ef-
forts. His contemporary was Ezra, the
rabbi and scribe. Ezra’s contribution
made Nehemiah’s work possible. Ezra
brought the Torah to Jerusalem, the
first five books of the Bible that had
been painfully written down by Jews
in exile. This single act so inspired and
revitalized the worship of God in Jeru-
salem, that Israel, a nation crippled and
on its knees from the oppressors’ whip,
stood up. In bringing back this worship
code to Jerusalem, Ezra gave the peo-
ple a reason to rebuild the city. It
symbolized that God had re-entered
Jerusalem and Hebrew worship cele-
brated that the obituary of the city had
been prematurely written.

The perspective of Ezra and Nehe-
miah points to a whole new strategy of
urban ministry. If people of a congrega-
tion are going to be involved in urban
ministry, then they must develop min-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

i43

istries that build the congregation as a
worshipping-nurturing community of
people. People come to church because
they need and want the saving and ac-
cepting power of Jesus Christ. People
cannot survive unless they have power
and energy to survive. The Church is
where you get the power to live.

It has been my experience that wor-
ship and the nurture that worship
affords is the very life-source and ener-
gizer of urban ministry. It became pop-
ular during the i96o’s to depreciate
worship, to say that Sunday morning
was secondary or tertiary. This mythol-
ogy espoused the notion that real rele-
vance, and hence the kingdom of God,
was only to be discovered on the street
and that Jesus was only found in the
marketplace of the Secular City. As
one who has worked the streets, and
poolhalls, broad avenues and board
rooms of several major cities in the past
ten years, as one who has worked with
senior citizens and counter culture hip-
pies, as one who has helped tear down
houses and get houses rehabilitated, as
one who has seen strong men burn out
and dynamic women turn sour, as one
who has seen empty churches, full
churches and struggling churches par-
ticipate in all of these ministries, I can
say with confidence that the people and
the churches which are effective today
are those who like Ezra, have taken the
time to realize that man does not live
by bread alone, but by the redemptive
and restorative Word that proceeds out
of the mouth of God.

(iii)

Let me say the same thing in non-
religious terms: Urban ministry that is
effective is that which enhances the
self-interest of the urban church as an
organization. Like Nehemiah in Jeru-
salem, so too, we of the Church of

Jesus Christ must not be afraid of dis-
creetly using our authority as leaders
in the city. My experience has been
that churches who dare to take leader-
ship in the city and community, in the
name of the church, infuse the city
and the congregation itself with a vigor
of faith and hope that social service
organizations, community organiza-
tions and city agencies cannot provide.
There is nothing magical about this
phenomenon. It is just a fact of urban
life. People still trust the church and
look to and expect the church to be
leaders in the city.

The example of Ezra and Nehemiah
also means a given congregation must
be careful not to burn out. It is my firm
conviction that without the city church,
urban life becomes strident and mean-
ingless and cut-throat. Therefore, the
city church must minister in a way that
builds its own financial resources, rather
than blows them away in short-term,
low-yield projects. City churches must
pick three or four projects on which to
work, and not twenty or thirty. City
churches must work on winable issues,
not on vast social problems. City
churches must work on issues that
build citizen power through independ-
ent, non-partisan citizen organizations.

I began this sermon with the state-
ment of folly, “In the city is the pres-
ervation of the world.” What I have
lifted up for you today is that “In the
church is the preservation of the city.”

We have a great opportunity ahead
of us in the next few years. Today the
spirit of the Lord is upon us and we
hear the good news of the prophet:
“They shall build up the ancient ruins,
they shall raise up the former devasta-
tions, they shall repair the ruined cities,
the devastations of many generations.
They shall be restorers of streets in
which to dwell.”

God’s Affirmative Action

Sermon by Daniel L. Migliore

A native of Pittsburgh, Pa., the Rev. Daniel
L. Migliore is an alumnus of Westminster
College, Pa. (A.B.), Princeton Theological
Seminary ( M.Div .), and Princeton University
(Ph.D.). Since 11)62 Dr. Migliore has taught
at Princeton in the Department of Theology
and is the author of many reviews and
articles in professional journals. This sermon
was given in the Nassau Presbyterian Church,
Princeton, N.f. in the summer of 1978.

Text: Matt. 20:1-16

T he parables of Jesus speak to us
again and again with astonishing
power. They capture us with their sim-
plicity, their vivid imagery, their real-
ism. Above all, the parables of Jesus
seize our attention and stretch our
imagination by their daring comparison
of the kingdom of God with everyday
happenings.

The parables refer us to our com-
mon, familiar world of experience for
hints and intimations of the kingdom
of God. Nothing could be farther from
abstract speculation about God than
the parables of Jesus. They speak of
God indirectly by pointing to the ele-
ment of surprise in the dramas of daily
life. The parables of Jesus do not draw
us away from the everyday world but
into the mystery of God’s grace and
judgment in the midst of our world.
By confronting us with the extraordi-
nary dimension of ordinary events, the
parables challenge us to decide whether
we are really open and ready for the
kingdom of God.

Like all the parables of Jesus, the
parable of the workers in the vineyard
compels us to think about the presence
and purpose of God in relation to the
most mundane affairs. This parable
plunges us into the ambiguous world
of work and unemployment, of con-
tracts and negotiations, of pay scales

and bonuses, of charges of injustice and
favoritism.

Perhaps the setting of the parable in
the tough world of economics is one
reason why it has never enjoyed the
popularity of such parables as the Good
Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Think-
ing of God’s grace and judgment in
terms of personal encounters or family
relationships comes much easier to us
than does thinking of the presence of
God in the economic and political
spheres of life.

There is, however, a second reason
why the parable of the workers in the
vineyard is troublesome for us. Quite
frankly we find ourselves identifying
with the characters of the story who are
reprimanded at the end. We find our-
selves asking whether the workers who
registered a complaint did not have a
point, whether payment could not have
been made to all the workers in a gen-
erous but less provocative way, whether
the decision of the owner was not
reached and defended in a rather arbi-
trary manner. No doubt this parable
triggers more defensive responses than
do most parables of Jesus. Who feels
any sympathy for the Priest and the
Levite who crossed to the other side
when they saw the wounded person
lying on the road? Who does not feel
some sympathy for those who have

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

145

worked hardest and longest in the par-
able of the workers in the vineyard?

But perhaps this parable has special
importance for us precisely because we
find it unsettling and even irritating.
If we look at the story a little more
closely, we may discover that the situa-
tion it describes has an uncanny resem-
blance to our own. The parable of the
workers in the vineyard is a story about
a surprising act of generosity that
stretches our understanding of justice
to the utmost limits; it is a story about
a controversy over preferential treat-
ment, about a kind of “affirmative ac-
tion” taken by an employer and the
deep resentment which this arouses in
honest, respectable people.

The plot of the parable is clear and
simple. The story moves quickly to the
dramatic confrontation between the
owner of the vineyard and his embit-
tered workers. The characters are real-
life figures rather than the super-heroes
and the arch-villains of fantasy. Look
again at each of them.

(a)

There is, first, the owner of the vine-
yard. He is obviously the central figure
of the story. He is portrayed as a com-
petent and experienced manager of his
property. The time for the harvest of
the grapes has come, and he realizes he
has need of a large labor force. If the
grapes are not harvested promptly, they
will begin to spoil or may even be de-
stroyed by heavy rain or pestilence.
Very early in the morning he goes to
town to hire a group of workers. He
enters into an agreement with them to
pay one denarius each for a day’s work.
Whatever the equivalent value of this
coin in today’s currency, we are no
doubt to understand that it was con-
sidered a fair day’s wage at that time.

After a few hours, the owner sees that
he needs additional workers. So he goes
out again to hire others, a second, a
third, a fourth time, promising in each
case to pay a fair wage. Finally, late in
the day, on his fifth excursion to town,
he discovers some unemployed people
still standing around in the market-
place. He needs their help, brief as it
will be, just as they need whatever they
may earn for themselves and their fam-
ilies; so he sends them to work in the
vineyard with the others.

When the time comes for paying the
workers, we find that the owner is more
than a hard-working, well-organized,
prudent, scrupulous businessman. He
is also a person of unusual generosity.
He instructs his paymaster to give a
denarius, a full day’s wage, to all the
workers, including those who entered
the fields late in the day. When the
workers hired first grumbled because
they did not receive more than the
others, the owner defended his action.
He had not done anyone an injustice
although he had exceeded what justice,
narrowly construed, would have re-
quired. He had exercised his freedom
in a most surprising way. He had been
generous to those who seemed to count
least. He had favored those who would
have received very little had they been
paid strictly according to scale. To the
complaining workers his action seemed
unfair and scandalous. But why should
it not be celebrated rather than criti-
cized? His purpose had not been to
undermine justice but to be generous
to those most in need of it.

(b)

Now consider the workers who re-
ceived the unexpected wage. We can
easily imagine how they felt. They
were astonished and we hope, very

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

146

grateful. Late that afternoon they had
been hanging around in the market-
place with nothing to do and little to
look forward to. True, we are not told
that unemployment was a familiar con-
dition for these people, that their status
today was a repetition of yesterday and
the many days before that. Nor are we
told that without work they would be
unable to secure the necessities of life
for themselves and their families. But
why do we have to be told these
things? We do not have to be told that
rain falls downward or that it is wet.
In any case, there is nothing in the
parable to support the assumption that
these people, still unemployed late in
the day, were lazy or incompetent.
When the owner of the vineyard asked
them why they were still idle so late in
the day, they replied: “Because no one
has hired us.” We have no reason to
call this a lame excuse. It was a simple
statement of fact. They had not been
given the same chance to work as the
others.

The town market in the ancient
world was the place where those seek-
ing work gathered. The fact that work-
ers were still in the marketplace at the
last hour of the working day is proof
that they wanted to work. Evidently
they had been passed over when others
were hired, but if so, we are not told
why. We are told only that when the
opportunity to work came to them, they
seized it. They went into the fields even
if only for a brief period and for what
would surely be a tiny wage, far from
adequate to meet their needs and the
needs of those dependent on them. We
have little difficulty imagining their
joy, their new hope, their emergent self-
respect when they were finally hired
and unexpectedly received for their la-
bor a full day’s pay.

(c)

Consider, finally, the workers who
were hired first. They were honest, in-
dustrious, reliable people. Hired early,
they were already at work in the fields
shortly after dawn. Having agreed to a
wage which seemed fair to them, they
did what they had contracted to do.
They worked hard all day long while
the sun beat down on them. At the end
of the day, the owner had no criticism
of their work, none whatsoever. Indeed,
he called their representative, “friend.”
But it was precisely because they had
done their work so well that these
workers were outraged when they re-
ceived no more for their labor than did
those who worked only one hour.
These protestors were not trouble-
makers. They were decent folk insisting
on justice and fair play. They had
nothing against their fellow workers.
They simply felt that it was unfair of
the employer to favor those who had
worked least by giving everyone the
same wage. We who put so much em-
phasis on reward according to achieve-
ment and merit can certainly under-
stand their indignation, their resent-
ment, their bitterness. If the owner
wanted to be generous, why was he not
impartial in his generosity? Why did
he not give everyone what he deserved
plus a bonus to all?

We are not told how these workers
responded when the owner explained
that their complaint was rooted in jeal-
ousy rather than justice, that they had
received what they had been promised,
and that they seemed unable to ap-
prove an act which brought unexpected
benefit and joy to others. However,
the possibility that the confrontation
ended in deep alienation is indicated

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

147

by the word of the owner to these
workers: “Take your pay and go.”

In order to allow this parable to
make its point as sharply as possible,
we must ask about the particular situa-
tion to which it is addressed. The par-
able has a history, and its message has
been addressed to different audiences.
In its original setting in the life and
ministry of Jesus the parable of the
workers in the vineyard, like the par-
able of the prodigal son, most probably
was Jesus’ answer to those who criti-
cized his ministry of forgiveness and
reconciliation among sinners and de-
spised people. Jesus befriended these
people and even ate at the same table
with them. According to Jesus’ critics, it
was outrageous that lawbreakers and
outcasts should be invited into the king-
dom of God along with devout, spiritu-
ally superior, law-abiding people. Was
it not a blasphemous parody of the
justice of God for these sinners to be
treated just like the righteous?

So Jesus told the story of the owner
of a vineyard who acted with what we
might call “benign partiality.” “I want
to give to those who were hired last the
same as I give to you,” says the owner
to his critics. His act is partial in the
sense that it cannot be justified by the
principle of exact proportion between
achievement and reward. But his par-
tiality is benign because it aims not at
the elevation of some people over others
but at the good of all; not at the ex-
clusion of some but at the inclusion of
all. In its original setting, this is a par-
able of the freedom of God to extend
forgiveness and acceptance to the out-
cast and the despised.

There is, however, a double-edge to
the parable. It describes not only the
benign partiality of the owner of the
vineyard but also the hostility and re-

sentment which this arouses. The par-
able emphasizes both the mystery of
grace and the resentment which this
meets in persons who anxiously guard
their special status and rank. The par-
able thus gives expression to a central
theme of the ministry of Jesus and of
the message of the whole Bible: the
partiality of God toward those con-
sidered least deserving and the resent-
ment which this creates. The partiality
of God toward the poor and the outcast,
toward the losers and latecomers of this
world, arouses hostility among decent,
law-abiding persons who are inclined
to cloak their resentment in self-serv-
ing conceptions of justice.

Already in the Gospel of Matthew
the parable has been readdressed. The
message of the benign partiality of God
and the resentment which this encoun-
ters is directed now to the church and
indeed to the leaders and long-standing
members of the church. Matthew sets
the parable in the context of questions
of the disciples as to whether they will
be specially rewarded for their long
and faithful service. Will they not re-
ceive more for their service than other
Christians? It is now the followers of
Jesus who must be addressed by the par-
able once addressed to the Pharisees and
critics of Jesus. The parable now speaks
to the church of Matthew’s time, mak-
ing the same point but cutting a differ-
ent way: Do not try to limit God’s
goodness toward people you consider
less deserving than you. If you do, you
may be spiritually destroyed by your
own resentment and bitterness.

Today the parable must once again
be readdressed. It must be addressed to
us here and now. We are the ones who
are now questioned by the parable. Are
we ready for the kingdom of God? Do

THE. PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

148

we begrudge God’s goodness? Do we
resent God’s benign partiality?

We begin to grasp the concrete mean-
ing of this parable for us when we listen
to it in the context of the controversy
about affirmative action programs in
American society today. Affirmative ac-
tion refers to positive steps taken by
the institutions of our society, by cor-
porations, unions, universities, profes-
sions, churches, to bring more people
who have been demonstrably disadvan-
taged by chronic racial and sexual dis-
crimination into the mainstream of the
life of our society.

As the Supreme Court decision in
the Bakke case and public reactions to
that decision show, the American peo-
ple are not at all unanimous about the
principle of affirmative action and even
less agreed as to the proper ways to
implement it. Christians cannot pretend
to have specially revealed, ready-made
answers to the difficult questions of how
such programs can be fairly adminis-
tered. Certainly we cannot suggest any-
thing so naive as that the parable of the
workers in the vineyard provides a blue-
print for such programs. But the mes-
sage of the parable can and should
shape and reshape our attitudes as
Christians toward affirmative action.
An affirmative action program in a
business, a university, a church agency
may be a concrete parable of the king-
dom of God. Why should Christians
today not be sensitive and imaginative
and free enough to discern in affirma-
tive action a hint, a parable of the grace
and judgment of God in our society?

Any attentive reading of the parable
of the workers in the vineyard or indeed
of the Bible as a whole must recognize
that there is something like partiality in
the grace of God, that God is benignly
partial to the weak, the poor, the out-

cast, the disadvantaged, and that this
outrageous partiality of grace makes
strong, hard-working, successful, decent
people terribly vulnerable to the temp-
tations of bitterness and resentment.

The parable of the workers in the
vineyard warns that there are great
dangers in this resentment of decent
persons to God’s partiality toward the
disadvantaged. We should heed these
warnings as we confront the issue of
affirmative action in our universities
and professional schools, in our police
and fire departments, and in the gov-
erning bodies of churches across the
land.

(i)

In the first place, we are warned not
to allow a spirit of resentment to blind
us to the chance to love. The owner of
the vineyard gave the workers hired
first more than their just wage. He gave
them a secret gift. He gave them the
opportunity to love, the chance to re-
joice in the well-being of others, the
possibility of saying yes to those in
need. The chance to love is the chance
to be truly human.

(ii)

Second, we are warned not to over-
look the privileged treatment we have
enjoyed. The workers hired first failed
to recognize that there was something
inscrutable and mysterious about the
fact that they had been hired first
whereas, for unknown reasons, others
had been hired later and some not until
the last hour. Perhaps those hired first
believed it was because they were more
industrious, stronger, more intelligent,
but who could say this was true beyond
the shadow of a doubt? Was there not
an element of mystery, of grace, in their
being selected first, and was it not there-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

149

fore a little too self-congratulatory to
pretend that they had not also received
special favor?

In his statement on the Bakke case,
Justice Blackmun noted that many
people are disturbed about a program
of admissions where race is an element
of consciousness, a factor in decision-
making, yet all of us know very well
that “institutions of higher learning . . .
have given conceded preferences to
those possessed of athletic skills, to the
children of alumni, to the affluent who
may bestow their largess on the institu-
tions, and to those having connections
with celebrities, the famous and the
powerful.” In other words, we wink at
preferential treatment as long as it
benefits us. Our resentment therefore
threatens to turn us into hypocrites.

(iii)

Third and finally, the result of resent-
ment to the working of grace in our
common life is that people who are
otherwise friendly, hard-working, re-
sponsible folk become estranged from
the source of life and goodness which
sustains us all. There is no apocalyptic
scene of judgment in the parable, no
wailing and gnashing of teeth, no stok-
ing of eternal fires. There is only the
word of the owner to his resentful
workers: “Take your pay and go.” In
the early hours of the morning, owner
and workers had been of one spirit;
later in the day all the workers had
labored together toward a common
goal. Where once there was communion
and solidarity, there is now estrange-
ment and hostility. “Take your pay
and go.” This final word of separation
is judgment enough.

God’s love for the despised and mar-

ginated people of this world is the
original and irrevocable case of affirma-
tive action. “In Christ all the promises
of God are Yes” (2 Cor. 1:20). God’s
mighty Yes to us in Jesus Christ is
unique. We have all been included in
his affirmative action. God forgives sin-
ners, God reconciles those at enmity
with him and with others, God lib-
erates the oppressed. And all the resent-
ment with which we respond to his
affirmative action he takes into himself
in the passion of his Son on Golgotha.
This affirmative action of God is not to
be confused, not to be identified with
the little affirmative actions which we
are called to take in our schools, our
churches, our factories. God’s kingdom
is not to be confused with our programs
of justice and freedom for all. All of
our programs are fallible and in need of
continuous criticism and reform. We
are capable of doing terrible things with
good intentions. Nevertheless, while our
small affirmative actions are never iden-
tical with God’s kingdom, they may be
parables, hints, anticipations of that
kingdom, and herein they have their
importance and their urgency.

So in a time when the pros and cons
of affirmative action programs in our
society will be increasingly debated, in
a time when the backlash against such
programs is probably on the rise, it is
good to consider anew the message of
this parable of the workers in the vine-
yard, this parable of an act of benign
partiality and of the ensuing resentment
which leads to estrangement. “Do you
begrudge my generosity?” asks the
owner of his aggrieved workers. This
question once addressed to the critics
of Jesus and then to his early followers
is now addressed to us.

Not by Bread Alone

A Lenten Homily
by Thomas W. Mann

A native of Durham, N.C., the Rev. Thom-
as W. Mann is an alumnus of the University
of North Carolina and Yale University Di-
vinity School (B.D. & Ph.D.). Since 1974
he has been a member of the faculty of
Biblical Studies at Princeton Theological
Seminary and is the author of Divine Presence
and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The
Typology of Exaltation (Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, /977J. This homily was given at
a regular Chapel Service on the Princeton
campus.

Text: Deuteronomy 8

I must confess that I have prepared
this sermon with considerable fear
and trembling. Those who presume to
preach on the book of Deuteronomy
will be immune from such trepidation
only to their peril. After all, any sermon
on Deuteronomy is already a sermon
on a sermon, and the latter is attributed
to no less a preacher than Moses, who,
everyone knows, was the greatest
preacher who ever lived.

We approach this text in the spirit of
the Lenten season. Traditionally, this is
a season of giving up, a period of re-
linquishing, and this relinquishing
often takes the form of fasting. Lent is
a time for giving up the bread of life,
as a symbol of that deeper relinquish-
ing of the soul in penitential contem-
plation. And, in recent years, fasting
has become a sign of participation in a
world where relinquishing the bread of
life is simply not an option for millions
of people.

In the light of this, it would seem, at
first glance, that Deuteronomy 8 is a
text most fitting for the Lenten season.
Just as Lent traditionally covers forty
days, so our text is concerned with
forty years. Like Lent, this period is
seen as a time of affliction and hunger,
a period of discipline and testing,

through which the wilderness genera-
tion came to know the Lord. Just as in
Lent we look forward to the new life
of the resurrection, so in our text Israel
looks forward to the new life in the
promised land. And, above all, our text
contains the classic line, quoted by
Jesus in his own period of fasting and
temptation: “humankind does not live
by bread alone, but humankind lives by
everything which proceeds from the
mouth of the Lord.”

But, as fitting as the text may seem
for Lent, those who read the whole
chapter carefully will, I suspect, per-
ceive a certain irony. The irony lies in
the fact that the text speaks not only
about affliction and hunger, but also
about affluence and satiety. It speaks
not only about the wilderness, but also
about the good and fertile land, “a land
of fountains and springs, a land of
wheat and barley, a land in which you
will eat bread without scarcity, in which
you will lack nothing.” How is one to
understand this juxtaposition? Why
does the author speak of hunger and
satiety in the same breath? What do
the afflictions of the wilderness wan-
dering have to do with the good life
in the new land? And, most of all,
what does it mean to say, in this con-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

text, that “humankind does not live by
bread alone, but by every word which
proceeds from the mouth of Yahweh”?

I want to make just two observations
about what the text is saying, in con-
nection with the observance of Lent.

(i)

In the first place, the author shows a
tremendous appreciation for the bless-
ings of life. Bread and wine, herds and
flocks, silver and gold, are not intrin-
sically evil, and the relinquishment of
the bread of life should not be con-
fused with a piety which dichotomizes
the spiritual and the material. Life be-
fore God is inherently both material
and spiritual. Perhaps the key word
here is “alone.” The text says that we
do not live by bread alone; but it does
not say that we live by the word of God
alone. The life which God gives to us
includes both word and bread, both soul
and body. We are not necessarily living
holy lives because we have given up
some token of earthly existence. Re-
nunciation of the material, and devo-
tion to the spiritual, do not intrinsically
signify righteousness before God. True
obedience to the word necessarily in-
volves appreciation for the bread.

(ll)

This leads to the second, and final,
observation.* It is interesting that the
author does not suggest fasting as a
form of remembrance of the testing in
the wilderness. In fact, the text does not
recommend any form of remembrance
at all. There is no prescribed rite which
Israel is to observe, no liturgy which she

* While the text does not support a spiritual
piety divorced from worldly existence, on the
other hand it is also concerned less with ex-
ternal religion than with internal fidelity.

151

is to celebrate. The Deuteronomist is
simply not interested in the outward
manifestations of piety. Instead, his
concern is with the attitude of the
heart. It is the internal orientation of
the people, as a community of faith,
which consumes his interest. Just as
Yahweh tested Israel in the wilderness,
to know what was in her heart, so Israel
is to know in her heart — to recognize
and affirm internally — the parental
grace of God.

Still, the author’s main concern is not
the temptations in the past, but those
of the future. The lesson of the wilder-
ness is understood to be aimed at Israel’s
ongoing life before Yahweh in the fu-
ture, in the bounteous new land. And
here the irony of the relationship be-
tween wilderness and new land is even
more apparent. The wilderness wander-
ing, which was perceived as punish-
ment, was in fact instruction in the
grace of God. The new land, which
could be perceived as reward, or as
achievement, is in fact the gracious gift
of God. Both wilderness and fertile
land are part of God’s parental care,
and yet neither is romanticized as a
sure sign of human worthiness before
God.

In short, the irony of the whole chap-
ter turns on the relationship between
life and death, hunger and satiety, re-
membering and forgetting, gratitude
and arrogance. In the wilderness, where
Israel expected to die, she found out
what life really meant. In the new
land, where life will be so bountiful,
Israel may be led into death. Similarly,
the affliction which Israel would na-
turally like to forget, she is told to re-
member; the good times to which she
naturally looks forward, she is told to
beware. In the end, the wilderness was

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

152

a test of hunger, the new land, a test of
satiety — and the latter is the more dan-
gerous.

Like the wilderness, the new land
too will be a test of the heart. In the
midst of affluence, Israel will be tempt-
ed to lift up her heart, not in gratitude,
but in arrogance. She will easily forget
the God who led her in the former time
of trial. “Beware lest you say in your
heart, ‘My power and the might of my
hand have gotten me this wealth.’ ”

The irony of the text lies in the fact
that both affliction and affluence, both
the threat of death and the promise of
new life, confront the community of
faith with the most serious of tempta-
tions — the temptation of forgetting.
Forgetting is not simply a mental lapse
of memory, but a fundamental and ac-
tive distortion of Israel’s relationship
with God. The attitude of the heart

is not only internal, but involves the
whole corporate body; it involves every-
thing that the people do and say.

For Israel, the time of affliction in the
wilderness has not partitioned off as a
separate part of her past, to be quickly
forgotten once the new life had come.
It seems to me that we should under-
stand Lent in much the same way. Lent
is not simply an independent part of the
ecclesiastical year. Relinquishing the
blessings of life is justifiable only when
it derives from and returns to thanks-
giving to the source from whom all
blessings flow. If it is genuine, Lent is
only an outward sign of an inner atti-
tude, an attitude of humble gratitude for
the new life which we receive, and a
recognition that life comes both as word
and bread. The ashes on the forehead
are only the remains of the fire; the
fire itself must ever burn in the heart.

Bultmann and the
Proclamation of the Word

by Ronald E. Sleeth

O ver twenty years ago, Theodore
O. Wedel wrote a perceptive article
entitled, “Bultmann and Next Sun-
day’s Sermon.” 1 It was the author’s in-
tention to introduce Rudolf Bultmann
to American preachers by demonstrat-
ing his importance for the preaching
office. Though by no means uncritical,
Wedel, nevertheless, affirmed that in his
work the Marburg scholar had the pro-
claimers of the Gospel in mind. 2 Wedel
claimed in regard to Bultmann’s influ-
ence, “As one who is arousing the
churches to the urgency of proclaiming
the good news to our age he may be one
to whom can be applied the words of
the Old Testament: Who knows

whether you have not come to the
Kingdom for such a time as this?”’ 3
Now, approximately two years after
Bultmann’s death, there is need for a
re-appraisal of his influence on the pul-
pit by delineating certain aspects of his
theological pursuits which have bearing

1 Theodore O. Wedel, “Bultmann and
Next Sunday’s Sermon.” Anglican Theologi-
cal Review , Vol. 39, 1957.

2 For example, Wedel quarreled with Bult-
mann’s term demythologizing. He contended
that the preacher’s task is the opposite of de-
mythologizing, for the pulpit should present
“an apologetic for the use in the Bible of
imaginative symbols as conveying truths
which defy historical literalism.” Perhaps it
is a semantic problem. Wedel’s strictures
could be obviated by the word re-mytholo-
gize.

3 Ibid., p. 8.

An alumnus of Yale Divinity School
(B.D.) and 'Northwestern University (Ph.D.),
the Rev. Ronald E. Sleeth is currently a
visiting professor in preaching at Garrett-
Evangelical Theological Seminary. Dr. Sleeth
has taught at Vanderbilt and Perkins Theo-
logical Schools and is the author of several
boo\s on communication and preaching, in-
cluding Persuasive Preaching ( Harper , ig$6)
and Which Way to God? ( Abingdon , ig68).

on homiletics. Much critical comment
has been written on this multi-faceted
scholar since his death. His work as a
New Testament scholar, existential phi-
losopher, and theologian is being ap-
praised and will continue to be. The
purpose here is to examine his con-
tribution to preaching theory and there-
by to the Christian pulpit.

It goes without saying that Rudolf
Bultmann is a controversial figure in
the theological world. His advocates
and critics are both highly vocal. It may
be too strong to aver as one writer does,
that

“The evaluation of any author is to
be done only after a fair and careful
reading of his own writings; but this
has been a problem in Bultmann’s
case, especially in America, where
the merchants of religious fear and
slogan warfare inspire burning be-
fore learning.” 4

Jeske certainly is right, though, in his
contention that “Bultmann was too
conservative for liberals and too liberal
for conservatives. To the former he ap-
peared too indebted to the Lutheran
tradition, his theology too focused on
the Bible; to the latter he appeared de-
structive to both.” 5
Whatever may be the final judgments

4 Richard Jeske, “Rudolf Bultmann 1884-
1976,” Dialog, Vol. 17, Winter 1978, p. 19.

5 Ibid.

154

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

of his labors, it is clear that Bultmann’s
towering figure will dominate scholar-
ship in the fields of New Testament
and theology for years to come. In re-
gard to preaching, his impact is also
powerful and will continue to be. For,
whatever one’s view of Bultmann’s the-
ological content and methodology,
there should be no question whatsoever
that he is an inveterate friend of preach-
ers. Wedel’s observation that he had
the proclaimers of the Gospel in mind
is certainly correct. Whatever else one
might say of Bultmann’s theological
work, it was done in service to the
Church. More particularly, it was a
servant theology subservient to the proc-
lamation of the Word — preaching the
Gospel. Schubert Ogden maintains that
“we have every reason to expect that
any theology claiming serious attention
should prove its relevance for authentic
Christian preaching .” 6 This comment
coming from a review of Bultmann’s
Marburg sermons applies to the theo-
logical stance of the book.

The Importance of Preaching

The importance given to the act of
preaching by Bultmann is obvious to
any careful reader of his writings, for
they are replete with the emphasis upon
service to the life of the Church and to
the task of preaching. It shocks some —
as it did Jaspers — to know that a scholar
of Bultmann’s stature who had shaken
the theological foundations in so many
areas was a devout churchperson, a
preacher himself, and one who felt the
salvation-occurrence was in the act of

6 Schubert M. Ogden, Review of Rudolf

Bultmann, The World and Beyond, West-

minster Boobjnan, December, i960, pp. 8ff.

Though applied to Bultmann in this instance,
the quotation would be true for Ogden as
well.

preaching and only there. Bultmann
did not claim to be a great preacher,
but he took the assignment seriously.
As Kendrick Grobel notes perceptively
in speaking of Bultmann (and hope-
fully for all of us), “to a true Lutheran
there are no ‘great preachers’ (are there
any to a true Christian ?) but only re-
sponsible and less responsible ones .” 7
Bultmann himself took the responsibil-
ity seriously as a natural expression of
both his churchmanship and his theol-
ogy.

The latter we have already empha-
sized, and its importance cannot be
stated too strongly. Grobel, an outstand-
ing New Testament scholar in his own
right and the translator of Bultmann’s
two-volume work on the New Testa-
ment, states the servant-to-the-church
nature of Bultmann’s studies of the
New Testament.

“. . . Bultmann regards all interpret-
ing of the New Testament as ancil-
lary. It is no mere luxury of a few
leisured professors, their graduate
students, and the rare thinking lay-
man. No, it is a servant discipline
(and a hard working one!) ancil-
lary to the Church’s proclamation .” 8

Interestingly enough, then, two of the
major theological figures of our century,
Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann,
while differing in many other respects,
are at one with their emphasis upon
the doctrine of the Word of God and
the attendant corollary of the centrality
of preaching . 9

7 Kendrick Grobel, “The Practice of De-
mythologizing,” Journal of Bible and Re-
ligion, Vol. 27, pp. 28-29.

8 Ibid., p. 29.

9 “Bultmann’s doctrine of the Word of
God is just as high as Karl Barth’s, but with
almost exclusive emphasis upon Barth’s third

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

Definition of Preaching

For Bultmann, however, the central-
ity of preaching was not a pious shib-
boleth born out of his understanding of
the Church or out of his scholarly pur-
suits as a churchman. Proclamation was
central as a theological affirmation to
be sure, but it had very specific content
coincident with his studies in exegesis,
and this primacy can be seen in these
exegetical works, books on the New
Testament, articles of various kinds,
and in his own sermons.

Similar to both Luther and Barth,
Bultmann believed that preaching is
God’s Word in human speech. God
through Christ speaks to us through the
proclamation of the preacher:

“. . . the sermon is the proclamation
of the Word of God as attested in the
Bible, that it must be understood as
an address which strikes the heart,
and in that address Jesus Christ him-
self speaks to us .” 10

Or:

“Proclamation is personal address. It
is authoritative address, the address
of the Word of God, which, paradoxi-
cally, is spoken by . . . the preacher .” * 11

And, again in his own words, with a
definition of preaching as precise as
one would be likely to find in Bult-
mann, or anywhere else:

“True Christian preaching is there-

form, the living Word of God speaking now
through Scripture and preacher to living
men.” Ibid.

10 Franz Peerlinck, Rudolf Bultmann als
Prediger. Hamburg: H. Reich Evangelischer
Verlag, 1970. Quoted in Jeske, op. cit., p. 26.

11 Rudolf Bultmann, “General Truths and
Christian Proclamation.” To Friedrich Go-
garten on his 70th birthday. Tr: Schubert
M. Ogden, 1957.

155

fore a proclamation which claims to
be the call of God through the mouth
of man and, as the word of authority,
demands belief. It is its characteristic
paradox that in it we meet God’s
call in human words .” 12

How reminiscent are these views of
Bultmann’s with those of others who
have contended that the Word of God
cannot be separated from its proclama-
tion. The Gospel is a preached Gospel.
The content cannot be separated from
its delivery. Though assumed to be
strictly a Lutheran view, this “high”
perspective of preaching has roots in
primitive Christianity, can be traced
throughout Christian history, and is
embraced today by many preachers and
scholars whose theological and denomi-
national spectrums are wide and varied
— both Catholic and Protestant . 13

Bultmann’s understanding of preach-
ing as God’s Word spoken in the
mouth of the preacher is followed nat-
urally by what is now called Word-
Event theology. The preached word re-
veals God’s Word in the event of
proclamation through the words of the
preacher addressed to hearers, and
thereby creates an Event not about the
Christian faith, but the Christian faith
itself. That is, preaching is not talking
about the Gospel, it is the Gospel. For
Bultmann, “the sermon (every true
sermon as released Word of God) is
part and parcel of the salvation-occur-

12 , “Preaching: Genuine and Secu-

larized.” Tr. Harold O. J. Brown. Religion
and Culture, Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich,
ed. by Walter Leibrecht. New York: Harper
& Bros. 1959, p. 237.

13 For a fuller discussion on this same
theme and on the persons who would be
close to Bultmann’s view, see Ronald E.
Sleeth, Proclaiming The Word, Nashville:
Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1964. Chapter 1.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

156

rence itself .” 14 The event of salvation is
inextricably related to the preaching of
the Word.

The indivisibility of the Word (of
God) with words (speech) reveals the
concern Bultmann had for language
and undoubtedly presaged much of the
present discussion in that area. Words,
in a sense, bring God who is unseen
into being. The words, then, bring
about a reality which affects our own
existence.

. . God advenes in language and
nowhere else. If Jesus was not raised
into language, he was not resurrected
at all. The resurrection of Jesus is
the fact that the New Testament story
of Jesus has the power to enable its
hearers to exist in trust instead of in
self-securing, trusting the one Jesus
called Father even without knowing
otherwise who he is. Whoever hears
such a kerygma knows, in the hear-
ing, the all-determining reality that
the word ‘God’ signifies .” 15

Bultmann’s concern for the Word of
God in the mouths of preachers with his
emphasis upon language, does not give
— as one might suppose — inordinate
power to the preacher’s role. Contem-
porary preachers often feel that views of
preaching such as Bultmann’s elevate
the preacher, causing ontological angst
as well as awe. The point, however, as
with Luther, is not to elevate the
preacher, but preaching.

“What they preach is not their own
thoughts and judgments, but the call
of God, which they must proclaim,
whether they will or not. . . . The

14 K. Grobel, op. cit., p. 29.

15 Robert P. Scharlemann, “The System-
atic Structure of Bultmann’s Theology.”
Dialog , Vol. 17, Winter 1978, p. 35.

words of such messengers are words
with authority, with an authority such
as human speech otherwise does not
have .” 16

The preacher, then, does not present
personal opinions and does not admon-
ish or console the congregation with
his or her own person. Nor, as Bult-
mann says in another place, does the
preacher reflect the congregation’s
ideals, feelings, yearnings, or certainties.
Certainly the preacher does not preach
his or her own self — even one’s own
religious life. The preacher does stand,
however, within the congregation. Ob-
viously, then, the Word of God is ad-
dressed also to the preacher. In that
sense the preacher does preach self. Or,
to be more precise, the preacher preaches
to himself or herself. Preachers, then,
preach a Word not their own which
addresses both the congregation and
themselves without reflecting either’s
personal feelings, ideals, or special in-
terests. In other words, the pulpit
proclaims a \erygma, a heralding ad-
dressed to both congregation and
preacher, and not simply general or
secular truths.

General and Secular Truths

Preaching is personal address pro-
claiming a message of Good News
where the very act of proclamation
fuses the kerygma and the preaching of
it into the salvation-occurrence itself.
Therefore, proclamation cannot be con-
ceived of as preaching truths available
to everyone naturally. This very inter-
esting idea is unfolded in two articles
Bultmann wrote paying tribute to
Friedrich Gogarten and Paul Tillich.
The first, entitled “General Truths and

16 Rudolf Bultmann, “Preaching: Genuine
and Secularized,” op. cit., p. 237.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

157

Christian Proclamation,” was written
for Friedrich Gogarten on his seven-
tieth birthday. The second article called,
“Preaching: Genuine and Secularized”
appears in a Festschrift ( Religion and
Culture ) in honor of Paul Tillich. The
intent and theme of both articles are
similar.

Bultmann claims that general truths
are truths which are available to every-
one because they arise from man him-
self. They arise from our human situa-
tion and our own reflections on our joys
and sorrows, valid for all of us. These
truths are like proverbs which all per-
sons can say to themselves, and they are
addressed to everyone. Preaching, on
the other hand, is the address of the
Word of God, having its meaning in
being addressed to us personally and
immediately — here and now. Proclama-
tion is a message we cannot say to our-
selves. We cannot carry the truth of the
Gospel around with us as a possession;
that would make it a general truth.
Faith grasps the Christian truth, and it
is appropriated again and again, often
with struggle, for it is not simply a
truth that enlightens or informs, but is
paradoxical — a scandal for us as “nat-
ural” human beings.

Pursuing this same theme, Bultmann
compares genuine preaching with secu-
larized preaching. Taking art as an ex-
ample, he suggests that it is possible
that art may become indirect preaching
when it lays bare existence in its depths
or focuses on human limitations and
life’s problematic nature, but that may
be self rather than God speaking. Also,
preaching is not espousing a philosophy
for discussion and speculation. Rather,
it is direct authoritative address which
demands a response of faith. Nor should
preaching be confused with teaching
which seeks primarily to instruct and

interest. It is helpful if a sermon does
both, but the real mission is to point up
questions which are inherent in various
areas of life, and the answers received
in light of the Word of God. Even
ethical instruction is not the sermon’s
goal. Rather, the sermon shows the
congregation’s need for forgiveness
with the paradox that in the sermon
human speech conveys God’s forgive-
ness. Love, which is the heart of the
ethical commandment, is obtainable if
one has been freed from oneself for
devotion to others. This freedom is not
a natural attribute, but is an event that
happens when a word of forgiveness is
spoken. When that happens, a person is
open to encounter the neighbor.

Preaching doctrine receives the same
treatment as propagating philosophy,
teaching, or ethical instruction. Doc-
trine is not direct address; it is not a
word which demands faith. The lan-
guage of theology can formulate the
content of preaching, but to state that
is not preaching. A person can be
brought to the need for forgiveness by
the doctrine of original sin, but the key
point is the acceptance of its preaching
by responding, “God be merciful to me
a sinner,” not by affirming a belief in
the doctrine of original sin.

Even preaching about Jesus can be
secularized if he is seen as simply an
appearance in history, a hero, or a pious
model. Preaching Jesus is not giving a
historical report. True preaching pro-
claims him Lord. This old Christian
confession, “Jesus Christ is Lord” is the
heart of the Gospel. He enables us to
live in the world, be raised above it, and
free from it — even as He was. We
understand the Lordship of Christ as
the gift of freedom in which we be-
come free from ourselves; thus, new
persons. Responding to genuine preach-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

158

ing means to believe in Jesus Christ as
Lord, to trust and obey; it does not
mean to accept certain doctrines about
Christ. It is true confession, according
to Bultmann, rather than acceptance of
doctrines that distinguishes genuine
preaching from secularized preaching.
The Lord is present in the Word
preached when Jesus Christ as Lord is
proclaimed. The communication of that
Word through personal address cannot
be over-emphasized.

“. . . one may finally ask whether
preaching can always be only in the
spoken word, whether it cannot also
occur through silent action. Certainly
a deed, too, can have the nature of an
address. But we are concerned with a
deed which can be effective as Chris-
tian preaching, that is, not with any
effects of the Christian religion in
Western civilization but with the
proof of Christian love of man for
man. The act of love opens to him
who receives it to become free from
himself, as he is drawn into the king-
dom of the rule of love and is guided
to accept with it the human, spoken
word of preaching as the Word of
God .” 17

The Bible and Preaching

It comes as no surprise to assert that
the Word of God comes through the
Scriptures for Bultmann. It would be
difficult to conceive anything different
for a Lutheran New Testament scholar.
Grobel makes the point adamantly in
speaking of Bultmann’s view of scrip-
ture and preaching:

“. . . Word of God . . . must be au-
thorized. How can it be? By hum-
bling itself to be nothing but exposi-

17 Ibid., p. 242.

tion of a Word of God that once
occurred. To that Word of old the
Bible bears witness . . . all preaching
is either expository or simply is not
preaching .” 18

Though stringently stated, Bultmann
himself would agree and writes that
“What marks his [preacher’s] sermon
as proclamation is that it has as its text
a word of Scripture and consists in the
interpretation of that word .” 19
As was seen in the sections on the
definition of preaching and in the com-
parison of secular preaching or general
truths with authentic preaching, it is
Jesus Christ who is the content of the
kerygma we preach. Interestingly, in
spite of the contention of those who
believe Bultmann ignores the historical
figure of Jesus, he contends that the
message preached is a historical fact.
“The content of the message is thus an
event, a historical fact: the appearance
of Jesus of Nazareth, his birth, but at
the same time his work, his death and
his resurrection .” 20 Bultmann is saying
that the kerygma is communication of a
historical fact, but it is also more than
that. The communication is more than
mere communication. In regard to the
both/and of the historical nature of the
Christ-Event, Bultmann considers the
perennial question of Jesus’ preaching
versus the Church’s proclamation
which included Jesus as the kerygma.
Though not stating that Jesus’ preach-
ing was not Christian preaching and
disregarding the question of whether
Jesus’ own preaching was hidden
Christian preaching, he does point out

18 K. Grobel, op. cit., p. 29.

19 R. Bultmann, “General Truths and
Christian Proclamation.”

20 , “Preaching: Genuine and Secu-

larized,” op. cit., p. 240.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

159

that the preaching of the Church and
the preaching of Jesus were not the
same. In any event, His message be-
came part of the Christian proclama-
tion “in which the one proclaimed is at
the same time present as proclaimer .” 21

Existential

No one thing causes more controversy
regarding Bultmann’s position than his
concept of demythologizing. It can be
considered alongside his existential mo-
tif — especially in connection with
preaching — because these two ideas
come to bear most dramatically at the
point of communication. His use of the
word mythology is actually not that
complicated. We noted earlier that
Wedel criticized Bultmann’s use of the
term de-mythology, but only because he
felt that the biblical mythology could
be interpreted as truth-conveying sym-
bols rather than using other myths, i.e.
demythology or remythology. Even
Wedel, though, sees clearly the prob-
lem Bultmann is addressing, as would
all who escape the fundamentalist ap-
proach to Scripture. In an endeavor to
avoid literal interpretation of a three-
story cosmology, the preacher must
address the task of communicating the
Gospel to our age, granting the ever-
present need for responsibility in inter-
preting (reinterpreting?) the Scrip-
tures.

George Stuart quotes Bultmann’s
own words that “Mythology is the use
of imagery to express the other worldly
in terms of this world and the divine
in terms of human life, the other side
in terms of this side .” 22 The controver-

21 , “General Truths and Christian

Proclamation,” op. cit.

22 Quoted from Kerygma and Myth in
George C. Stuart, “Demythologizing and

sial word “de-mythologized” seems in-
nocuously similar to “analogy” when
viewed by Bultmann himself. Grobel
further defines the term in a concrete,
specific manner that leaves little doubt
as to the meaning of demythologizing,
and its importance for the pulpit and
the pew:

“Bultmann discovered that it [the
mythical] can also be demythologized
by being existentialized, which
means, to coin a word, relevantized:
made relevant to man’s actual exist-
ence where and how he lives to-
day .” 23

If Grobel’s words do not convey in un-
mistakable terms the exact meaning,
then Bultmann in his foreword to a
book on his own preaching by Franz
Peerlinck certainly makes clear his in-
tent.

“. . . the task of preaching is the ex-
position of the Bible, . . . the language
of the Bible must be translated in
such a way that the modern hearer
can understand it, and that therefore
the sermon must be oriented toward
the actual situation of its hearers .” 24

It is this latter emphasis upon the
actual situation of the hearers that
makes Bultmann’s demythologizing so
important, and in addition, brings the
now-ness of his existentialism front and
center. Grobel reminds us of this exact
point when speaking of Bultmann’s in-
terpretation of the New Testament and
its ancillary function to proclamation.
Interpretation is not complete until it is
proclaimed from the pulpit, but not

Preaching.” Encounter, Vol. 19, No. 2.
Spring 1958, p. 133.

23 K. Grobel, op. cit., p. 31.

24 Quoted in Jeske, op. cit., p. 26.

i6o

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

even then. There is still the great divide
between the pulpit and the pew. Bridg-
ing that gulf provides the preacher with
the greatest of challenges. “All biblical
interpretation is complete only when it
has brought the proclamation effective-
ly into the man in the pew .” 25 This
means, of course, that even a paraphrase
of scripture will not do. Tbe sermon
“must rather endow them [words of
Scripture] with actuality, so that they
can be heard here and now as viva vox,
as having sprung from the immediate
moment .” 26 Such a stance not only gives
preaching immediacy, but emphasizes
once again that the act of preaching is
itself the salvation-occurrence.

“one must really say not the revela-
tion which has occurred, but the reve-
lation which is occurring. For this
communication does not make known
a past historical fact; rather, the para-
dox is that, in this ‘communication,’
the occurrence of revelation constant-
ly takes place anew. . . .” 27

The Gospel is proclaimed in the now
as an eschatological event for us. We
are called to enter the drama of death
and resurrection as a means of entering
new life in Christ. As Wedel graphical-
ly portrays it:

“The word ‘decision’ — and this, in
turn, viewed with eschatological ulti-
mates awesomely in mind — might be
called Bultmann’s theme song. . . .
The preacher, clearly, is called upon
to confront his hearers with the scan-
dal of the Gospel as a scandal now.
. . . Baptism involves more than a
confession of belief that a man called

25 Grobel, op. cit., p. 29.

26 R. Bultmann, “General Truths and
Christian Proclamation,” op. cit.

27 Ibid.

Jesus died and rose again. It means
participation in that action. This is
a drama in which we are on the
stage .” 28

Decision is important to Bultmann.
Personal address calls for response from
a particular congregation in a specific
situation, as distinguished from general
truths, for example, or secularized
preaching. The call is nothing less than
placing before the auditor a decision
“whether he will belong to the old or
to the new world, whether he will re-
main the old man or become a new
man .” 29

Finally, reminding us again of the
nature of the kerygma, its presence in
the now, and the decisiveness of our re-
sponse, Bultmann states that:

“Believing in Christ does not mean
holding high ideas about his person
to be true, but believing in the Word,
in which he speaks to us, through
which he wants to become our
Lord .” 30

Conclusion

Two decades after Theodore Wedel’s
hope that Bultmann would have a posi-
tive effect on next Sunday’s sermon,
there is reason to believe that his influ-
ence has been significant. Granting that
there are those who remain unaffected
by the issues Bultmann raised, and
others who have outright antipathy,
there is little doubt that to any serious
student, Bultmann has become a figure
to be reckoned with, not only in the
fields of New Testament and Theology,
but also forcefully in the responsible
work of the minister called to proclaim

28 Wedel, op. cit., p. 6.

29 R. Bultmann, “Preaching: Genuine and
Secularized,” op. cit., p. 242.

30 Ibid., p. 240.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

161

the Word of God faithfully week by
week.

His firmness in stating the primacy
of preaching by no means makes him
unique. It does place him in the stream
of those who claim that preaching is
based upon Revelation and the Word
of God. That is to say, that God has
and continues to be revealed in the proc-
lamation of the Word. It is erroneous
to consider such an affirmation as strict-
ly Lutheran. Bultmann’s stance is
normative in the history of the Chris-
tian Church, and this high view of
preaching has its counterparts in count-
less creeds which define the Church as
being constituted by Word and Sacra-
ment (i.e., the Church is where the
pure Word of God is preached and the
Sacraments duly administered). The
coupling of Word and Sacrament also
finds its way into the ordination vows
of most Christian Churches. Therefore,
to relegate Bultmann to a Lutheran
parochialism, or label him just another
Barthian, is to misread his work and
his influence. While Barthians are often
accused of a preaching that repeats a
historic and static kerygma as if the
verbal assertion would be efficacious in
itself, Bultmann’s existential emphasis
would exclude him from that charge.
The concern for communicating the
Gospel is at the heart of demythologiz-
ing.

The emphasis upon the Gospel as a
preached Gospel causes concern in some
quarters, but the affirmation that the
human word embodies God’s Word
should not seem unusual. In addition
to the historical tradition of the Church
that affirms it, scholars such as Bult-
mann stand clearly on that premise.
The Word-Event movement has. as its
basis the belief that the Word spoken
by words calls into being an event

which is the salvation-occurrence itself.
Interestingly enough, that theological
proposal is not unlike the interest in
language and words as expressed by
modern communication experts. The
importance of the human voice and the
use of words as the basis of communica-
tion among humans is only one ex-
ample of this secular counterpart to
Bultmann’s concern.

Many of us fear any undue emphasis
upon the role of the preacher which in-
culcates an authoritarian or dogmatic
position. To assign such a high valence
to the pulpit as Bultmann does causes
both theological alarm and personal
angst. Though one could not, or should
not, minimize the awe associated with
the proclamation of the Word, three
important affirmations can be made.
First, Bultmann does not confuse the
role of the preacher with the preacher’s
task. That is, it is the preacher’s work
that is elevated, not the preacher. Sec-
ond, the Word which the preacher has
wrestled with in the Scriptures and ad-
dressed to the congregation paradoxi-
cally is not only delivered to others; it
is also delivered to himself or herself.
Third, it is the incarnational aspect of
preaching which tempers the mysterium
tremendum of the preaching office. The
reverent awe of dealing with God’s
Word is mitigated by the faith claim
that God has entrusted the revelatory
Word to a human vessel. Just as in the
Incarnation the Word became flesh, so
it does now in the faithful and respon-
sible proclamation of the Word.

One of the most important emphases
of Bultmann which could influence the
American pulpit profoundly is his ad-
monishment concerning secular preach-
ing and/or preaching on general truths,
as contrasted with genuine preaching.
There is a parallel between his warning

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

162

against preaching general truths and
with our proclivity for “topical” preach-
ing. Preaching “topical” sermons as op-
posed to “biblical” sermons surely domi-
nates most pulpits. Seeking a topic,
preaching upon it with or without bibli-
cal support compares with Bultmann’s
understanding of preaching general
truths. Through his and others’ em-
phasis have permeated the American
scene — at least theoretically — pragmati-
cally most American preachers (what-
ever the denomination or theology)
tend to preach topics.

The antithesis, of course, is biblical
preaching; that is, permitting the ser-
mon to arise from the preacher’s strug-
gle with the text, which is our story
and tells us who we are. Far from being
a literal talisman, the Scripture contains
the Christian’s Heilsgeschichte, the ke-
rygma for the Christian community,
and the medium through which God
has spoken and continues to speak.

Though to some, Bultmann may deni-
grate the historicity of the Christian
faith, his emphasis upon kerygmatic
preaching keeps one’s focus on the
death and resurrection of Jesus, as well
as the birth, life, and teachings.

Finally, how can the preacher avoid
the exultation associated with Bult-
mann’s existential motif relative to the
pulpit? Apart from whatever we be-
lieve about his philosophical base, his
focus on communicating the now-ness
of the Gospel can be exhilarating. Sup-
pose, for example, the typical week -by-
week preacher caught a glimpse of
preaching that sent him or her into the
pulpit, not simply to revivify the “old,
old story,” but to proclaim that this
Gospel can be appropriated now, and
as efficaciously as when it was first
heard. Such a message would truly be
Good News. Wedel’s vision for next
Sunday’s sermon would be fulfilled,
and we would all be indebted to the
work of Rudolf Bultmann.

A Commencement
Address— Re-Issued

by J. Ritchie Smith

T here are certain illusions that we
are prone to cherish as we leave
the shelter of home and school to take
our place in the army of the world's
workers. They are bright visions of
youth which vanish quickly as the mists
of early morning disappear before the
rising sun. The rude hand of time tears
away the veil which divides the world
of fact from the world of fancy, and
we are confronted by the stern realities
of life. So Wordsworth pictures the
youth,

“Who by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended,

At length the man perceives it die
away

And fade into the light of common
day.”

These illusions relate to ourselves, to
the church and to the world. We are
all in danger of thinking of ourselves
more highly than we ought to think.
Self-respect is a virtue, self-conceit is a
vice, but who may draw the line be-
tween them and say where one ends
and the other begins ? The task of con-
science would be much lighter if good
and evil were always sharply distin-
guished; if every action and quality
were either white or black. But there
is a large intermediate zone of gray.
Over against every virtue there is set a
contrary vice, and one easily merges
into the other. Vice masquerades as vir-
tue, and virtue decays to vice. At what
point does liberty turn to license? Just
when does patience cease to be a virtue

This address, delivered to the Graduating
Class of 1932, is re-printed at the request of
an alumnus of the same year. The late /.
Ritchie Smith, an alumnus of both Prince-
ton University and the Theological Semi-
nary, was professor of homiletics from 1914-
1929.

and become mere weakness? When
does meekness turn to cowardice?
What line divides justice from revenge,
and pity from maudlin sentiment?
How may we distinguish self-conceit
from self-respect? There are certain
marks of self-conceit which are unmis-
takable — a sense of fancied superiority
which leads us to stand apart from our
fellowmen; a supreme confidence in our
wisdom which persuades us that we are
masters and not the 'ministers of the
church. These are manifestations of
self-conceit which have wrought im-
measurable harm. The minister has no
ex-officio grace and no supernatural wis-
dom is conferred upon him by ordina-
tion. The first requisite of a good min-
ister is to be a good man, a humble
holy follower of the Lord Jesus. Some
years ago a cousin of mine wrote me in
behalf of a church in a western city
which was seeking a pastor. They had
had several unfortunate experiences
with ministers, and after speaking of
various qualifications which they de-
sired, he added, “We should like to have
a Christian, if possible.”

It is easy to think highly of ourselves
before we have been put to the test; to
dream that we are rich before we have
begun to count our store; that we are
strong while our powers are yet untried.
The process of self-discovery is often
painful. We awake from our dreams of
commanding eloquence and crowded
congregations to the stern fact that we
are plain, ordinary, commonplace, are
not brilliant or eloquent, will never fill

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

164

a large place in the church or in the
world. Our fond parents may give a
glowing report of us in the morning of
life, and our tomb stone may eulogize
us at its close; but in between there is
a sad falling off. The sudden descent
from the gilded heights of fancy to the
vale of plain, prosaic, commonplace
existence is not a pleasant experience.
Nothing is more commonplace than the
ambition to be great. If wishes were
wings we should all be eagles or an-
gels. Hitch your wagon to a star, if
you will, but keep your wheels on the
ground.

We cherish certain illusions regard-
ing the church. We picture it as a scene
of idyllic symplicity, purity and peace,
of fellowship, brotherly love and spirit-
ual power. There are ministers who
spend their lives in the vain quest of
the ideal church. There is none this side
of the New Jerusalem. Jesus did not
find it in the company of the twelve.
Peter himself did not always exhibit the
Pentecostal spirit. Paul did not find it as
his Epistles abundantly attest. John did
not find it, and the epistles to the seven
churches give us a vivid picture of the
church in every age. What errors of
doctrine, what decay of morals, what
discord and strife among those who
should be brethren! A former parish-
ioner of mine recently reminded me of
a remark I once made in the pulpit, that
when I entered the pastorate I thought
I was called to be the leader of an army,
but found myself head nurse in a hospi-
tal. The words were evidently spoken
in a mood of disenchantment and dis-
appointment, but there is more truth in
them than there ought to be.

There are queer people in the church,
timid souls like the man who said to
me “I am afraid to study the Bible lest
I should lose my faith”; self-confident

spirits like the man who said to me not
long ago, “I know that Jesus said this,
but I do not agree with him”; the self-
righteous, like the woman who com-
plained to me of her neighbors, and
when I asked her if she could not for-
give them as God forgave her, ex-
claimed, “I never treated the Lord as
they treated me.” Or you may have such
an experience as befell me in my early
ministry. I was preaching in a Meth-
odist Church and at the close of the
service the minister announced that
“Brother Smith who is with us tonight
will preach again next week.” Where-
upon an old brother in the front pew
groaned out in painfully audible tones,
“Lord help us.” I was young and foolish
and the prayer was timely, but discon-
certing.

There are queer people in the church,
and we may be a little queer ourselves.
If you grow weary of the search for a
perfect church, comfort yourselves with
the question, suppose I should find it,
what use would it have for me? For
the ideal church would require the ideal
minister, and the one is as rare as the
other.

There are illusions that we cherish re-
garding the world. We fancy that the
world is young and plastic. Year by
year a great company of young men
and women emerge from school and
college, with essay in one hand and
diploma in the other, bent upon turn-
ing the world upside down and reform-
ing everything and everybody except
themselves; but the world swings on its
way unmoved and does not even know
that they are at it. The world was very
old when we were born and is very set
in its ways. We grow impatient with
the slow processes of nature and of
grace, but God is never in a hurry,
because he has eternity to work in. We

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

do well to remind ourselves often of
the word of the poet, “too swift arrives
as tardy as too slow.”

We are often told that the world is
hungry for the Gospel. It is true that
there is in the hearts of men a restless
craving which God alone can satisfy.
But with most men it is an ignorant
desire. The hungry body knows what
it wants, often the hungry soul does not.
Men seek satisfaction in money, in
pleasure, in fame, in honor, in power.
The soul hungers and thirsts after
righteousness, and they give it a new
car. The soul cries out passionately for
God, for the living God, and they give
it a trip to Europe. It is the task of the
minister not to create, indeed, but to
instruct and direct this craving of the
soul and turn it to Him in whom alone
satisfaction may be found. There are no
bread lines in front of our churches.
There are many men who preach the
Gospel sincerely and earnestly who
never draw a crowd. The world appears
strangely indifferent to our warnings
and counsels and appeals, and the
churches are half empty while the
streets are full.

These are some of the illusions re-
garding ourselves, the church and the
world that experience soon dispels. Life
is one long process of disillusionment.
Neither ourselves nor the church nor
the world are what we thought they
were. When we are thus rudely awak-
ened from the dreams of youth there are
those who grow hard, bitter, jealous,
cynical. A danger line in the ministry
which may easily become the deadline
is the approach to middle age. For this
there are several reasons. The church
no longer makes allowance for youth
and inexperience. The minister has
come to years of manhood and must
prove himself a man. The blossoms of

165

hope and promise are beautiful in the
springtime, but when summer comes
they must give place to the fruits of
wisdom and service. The physical ener-
gies begin to slacken, and the body
responds less promptly and efficiently
to the call of the spirit. As labor becomes
a little harder, we are likely to do a
little less and the habit grows. The
material which we have accumulated
during the years of preparation has been
exhausted, perhaps repeated over and
over again until it has become an oft
told tale, wearisome alike to minister
and people. The preacher is not a living
voice but merely an echo of the past.
The enthusiasm of youth has been shat-
tered against the hard facts of life and
the visions of youth no longer inspire
and strengthen him.

How shall we meet these conditions
and dangers that confront us at this
time of life? All depends upon the
habits we form in the Seminary and in
the early years of our ministry. We form
habits, then they form us. We are in
danger of repeating the experience of
Frankenstein, “The thing that we have
fashioned may become our master, our
tyrant.” Habits are the fetters or the
anchors of the soul. They are ruts or
rails, ruts that hamper, confine and
cripple our energies, or rails on which
the wheels of life turn easily and quick-
ly as they bear us on our way. Habits
are the moulds in which the life is cast.

There are two habits that are essential
if our ministry is to be not merely a
profession by which we earn a living,
but a divine calling: The habit of study
and the habit of devotion. Our study
must have a wide range, but the center
and soul of it is the Word of God. The
Bible is not an easy book. If it were the
world would have outgrown it long
ago. No other book is so difficult to

i66

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

master because no other book has pene-
trated so deeply into the realm of mys-
tery that hems us in on every side.
It is mainly concerned with the two
great mysteries of the universe: God
Almighty and man made in the image
of God. There is much, of course,
which is plain and clear so that a child
may learn the way of life; but there is
also much that the mind of man has
never fathomed, even the deep things of
God. Hard and long and patient study
is required if we would apprehend the
fullness of grace and truth which is
found in Christ Jesus.

A student once informed me with an
air of self-complacency that he had
reached the point of reading for inspira-
tion and not for information. I took an
early opportunity to remind the class
that we cannot have fire without fuel,
that it is well to gather the fuel before
we start the fire, and that he who reads
for inspiration only is likely to resemble
the Halloween lantern, a candle shining
dimly in an empty head.

The habit of devotion is the habit of
fellowship with God. He is the com-
panion, the friend of every day, shares
with us every experience of our lives,
has part in our sorrow and our joy. He
puts his great heart beneath our burdens
and griefs and helps us bear them.
Whatever concerns us touches Him,
and with unfailing wisdom and love
He ministers to every need.

Our study of the Word should be
both critical and devotional. Let us not
separate mind and heart when we take
up the Scripture. If the Bible is divine,
the most searching investigation is
simply a mode of approach to God. The
word is barren if we do not find God.
Let the morning hours be devoted to
this holy office.

We hold fellowship with Him in

prayer. We talk together, we speak the
same language, we speak to Him in
prayer, He speaks to us in promise. If
we thus abide in fellowship with God
through prayer and study of the word,
we shall not regret the lost illusions of
our youth for they are replaced by reali-
ties far nobler and greater, as the heav-
ens are higher than the earth. We may
no longer cherish the hope of earthly
fame and honor, but we are ambassa-
dors of the King of Kings, representing
the court of Heaven among the sons of
men. We are the servants, the friends,
the brothers of the Lord Jesus, and the
simple “well done” of the Master is
nobler and sweeter far than the loudest
trump of earthly fame. We are prophets
of the Spirit of God through whom he
speaks testifying of Christ as Redeemer
and Lord. Compared with these honors
conferred upon us by God himself, what
are the proudest titles of earth?

Our fancy may no longer picture a
great cathedral as the scene of our labors
and our triumphs, where great audi-
ences wait upon our ministries. The
church in which we serve may be small
and plain, one of those homely struc-
tures that offend the eye of the artist,
but strength and beauty are in his sanc-
tuary, the strength and beauty of God,
and the strength and beauty of his peo-
ple, the strength of omnipotence and
the beauty of holiness. This poor, un-
comely building is the house of God,
and gate of heaven. Here sinners are
born anew; here the people of God
are instructed, comforted, sanctified,
strengthened for the service of the
Kingdom.

The church may seem to fall far short
of the glorious vision that floats before
our imagination, but it is the salt of the
earth, the light of the world. It is
the pillar and ground of the truth, the

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

temple of God, the bride of Christ, the
body of Christ, the fullness of Him
that filleth all in all. The Kingdom is
far wider and greater than the church,
but the church is the visible and earthly
representative of the Kingdom. Very
imperfect are the men and women that
make up the church, just as imperfect
as we are; but this is the way God
thinks of them, this is the way the Lord
Jesus regards them, for he loved the
church and gave himself for it. It is
crowned with the promises of God, and
the Lord Jesus shall one day present it
to himself, a glorious church, without
spot or blemish, when the work of grace
is complete, and the reign of glory is
begun.

Learn to look upon the people to
whom you minister with the eyes of the
Master. With all their faults and fail-
ings, he loves them with an everlasting
love. In them he lives again; through
them he carries out his purpose of re-
demption. Ask nothing of them that
you do not first ask of yourself, remem-
bering that we all have one Master,
even the Lord Jesus.

The world may disappoint us sorely.
Men are hard, cold, indifferent; they
are deaf to the most moving appeals,
and seem insensible alike to hope and
fear, yet this is the world that God so
loved that He gave his only Son to
redeem it, this is the world for which
Christ died. These men and women so
immersed in the cares and pleasures of
life that they forget God, so laden with
sins, are dear to the heart of God the
Father. From them he is constantly
recruiting the church. The sinner of
today is the saint of tomorrow. There
is no man sunk so deep in sin that
Christ may not lay hold on him and
lift him to the skies. Remember that
this world is our field of service and

167

our training school for heaven. Christ
prayed not that his disciples should be
taken out of the world, for the disciple
needs the discipline of the world, and
the world needs the witness of the
disciple. There are lessons that we may
learn only here. There is service that
we may render only here. Learn to look
upon the world with the spirit of com-
passion that filled the heart of our
Lord; the utmost measure of love to
which we may attain is only a spark
caught from the infinite and eternal
flame of love that burns in the heart of
God.

If we thus face the realities of life we
shall be prophets, not priests. We do not
recognize a distinct order of priests. We
believe in the High Priesthood of
Christ, and the universal priesthood of
believers, who are appointed to offer the
sacrifice of praise and good works. But
there are priests among our ministers.
The priests are men of the letter con-
cerned with rites and forms and cere-
monies. The minister who is a priest
becomes an ecclesiastical mechanic, al-
ways tinkering with the machinery of
the church, and content if the wheels
run smoothly. The prophet is a man of
the spirit declaring unto men the will
of God for their salvation. Every man
bears a priest and a prophet in his own
heart and must determine which shall
rule his life. We are constantly set face
to face with the problems of the church.
We spend much time and thought upon
questions of organization and adminis-
tration, and they have their importance,
but they are wholly secondary. There
is only one problem of primary con-
cern in church life, and that is the prob-
lem of power. The poorest machine
with adequate power is vastly more
efficient than the most elaborate ma-
chinery where the power is wanting.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

1 68

The secret of power is abiding in Christ.
The secret of abiding is obedience. The
power is there without limit for it is the
power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of
Christ. But remember that the Spirit
comes not to be our servant, but our
master, not to work our will, but to
work his will through us. We make
our plans and then pray Him to help
us carry them out. There is a better
way; not plan and pray, but pray and
plan. Ask the Holy Spirit to help us
make our plans and if they are his, He
will not withhold his aid.

It is an inspiring thought that we are
not waging a losing battle or leading a
forlorn hope. We are marching on to
victory, to the certain and eternal tri-
umph of the Kingdom of God. Christ
is not on the way to another and darker
Calvary. Once he bore the cross, now he
wears the crown, a crown of all author-

ity in heaven and on earth. The world
is his for He made it and redeemed it.
Not one drop of the precious blood
that flowed on Calvary was shed in
vain, and the great majority of man-
kind shall be gathered in the Kingdom
of God. The race that fell in Adam is
restored in Christ. In the appointed
time and way He shall come again to
take possession of His own, and in the
glory of that coming His faithful fol-
lowers shall have a part. “With me ye
have borne the cross,” he shall say,
“with me ye shall wear the crown. He
that over-cometh shall sit with me on
my throne.” The heart of the promise is
not Shall sit on my throne , but shall sit
with me\ for to be with Him and to be
like Him is the highest conception that
we may form of the life to come, and
to Thee, blessed Lord Jesus shall be all
the praise.

BOOK REVIEWS

What in the World Is the World
Council of Churches ?, by Ans J. Van
Der Bent (including an interview with
General Secretary Philip Potter). World
Council of Churches, Geneva and New
York, 1978. Pp. 86. $3.95.

Most of the readers of this journal belong,
through their churches who are members, to
that great ecumenical fellowship which em-
braces the vast majority of non-Roman
Christians, from Eastern Orthodox to Pente-
costal, known as the World Council of
Churches. Recently the World Council has
been caught in a swirl of controversy, largely
due to particular actions by one of its depart-
ments. Through the attacks of its enemies, its
name is better known than ever before. But
the average church member and even the
average pastor is still in the main unaware of
the full scope of what the Council is and does.

Here at last is a small book, clearly written
and attractively illustrated, which fills this
need for basic information. It contains a con-
cise history of the modern ecumenical move-
ment as it grew out of the Life and Work, the
Faith and Order, and the world missionary
movements of the past century. It describes
the membership and the activities of the
Council in the deepening of theological and
spiritual fellowship between the churches, in
exploring world mission and evangelism, in
channeling interchurch aid to the needs of the
world, in giving expression to the social re-
sponsibility of the churches for justice and
human development, and in Christian edu-
cation and the renewal of congregational life.
There is also a brief chapter of reflection on
the tasks that face the churches as they work
together through the Council to bring a
Christian witness to the world of tomorrow.
Finally, there is a helpful list of appendices
which show the membership, the organiza-
tion, the staff and officers of the Council, and
a selected bibliography for further reading.

The book also faces frankly the criticisms
of the World Council of Churches, both in-
formed and uninformed, which are abroad in
the world today. It begins with an interview
with the General Secretary, Philip • Potter,
which sets the tone of the whole. That tone
is evangelical. Through Potter’s words one

hears the basic ecumenical and missionary
concern which formed the World Council of
Churches in the first place: that Christians
of the whole world may find the fullness of
their fellowship in Jesus Christ and may bear
a faithful witness to him throughout the
world. This means that the Council is con-
stantly wrestling with the problem of how an
institution can also be a movement, and how
a prophetic social witness can also be a minis-
try to the spiritual needs of the world. These
problems are unsolved in the World Council,
as they are unsolved in the churches. Chris-
tians need to listen to and work with each
other in seeking answers to them. This is
why the fellowship of the World Council of
Churches exists.

This little book is short and clear and in-
teresting enough to make good study material
for any adult group in the congregation, and
good reading for any church member.

Charles C. West

No Offense: Civil Religion and the
Protestant Taste, by John Murray Cud-
dihy. Seabury Press, New York, N.Y.,
1978. Pp. xvi + 232. $12.95.

This book presents a remarkable thesis,
which comes out only in the final chapter and
the conclusion: American Protestantism,

rooted in the Puritan tradition of old New
England and taking its model from Jesus and
the early church, has imparted a “religion of
civility” to the whole of American culture
and politics which both institutionalizes and
relativizes conflict between the ultimate claims
of ideologies and religions. Christian humility
takes the form of deliberate, even awkward,
simplicity — an esthetica cruets rather than
an esthetica gloriae — in art and life style. It
demands a politics that does not pretend to
realize community before the end-time but
civilizes the conflict of interests and ideals
into an imperfect but open process of living
together. It relativizes finally the divisive, the
elitist, claim of each religion — the Protestant
evangelistic drive, the Catholic claim to be the
one true church, and the Jewish sense of
being a chosen people — into a respectful ac-
ceptance of each religion by the other in a
plural society.

170

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

This is not, Cuddihy claims, a “civil re-
ligion” of the sort recently described by
Robert Bellah, and earlier by Will Herberg
and Ralph Henry Gabriel. It is not a set of
beliefs common to the three major strands of
American religion, woven together by a sense
of nationhood. Rather, it is a style of human
behavior which the American experience has
come to require. It is an esthetic sense of
what is appropriate in public life. There is a
deep paradox in it, because the “no offense”
this civility intends, gives definite offense to
both traditional and radical cultures which
are more communal and more dependent on
ther ultimates. Protestant sectarianism and
Catholic conservatism sometimes seem strong-
er than the mainstream. Judaism wrestles
with the special significance of the state of
Israel for its faith. And from the left comes
the continual shout that the civil consensus
on which American institutions are built is a
fraud engineered by the rich and the power-
ful to exploit and oppress the minorities and
the poor.

Nevertheless Cuddihy sees a continual do-
mestication of all these strands, however
powerful they may seem to be, which is con-
tinuous with the message of Jesus himself.
He also was offensive in his non-offense to
the prevailing culture and power of his time.
His fusion of divine power with the lowly
and the commonplace, epitomized in the
Last Supper, demanded both a political and
an esthetic sacrifice of his followers, that
characterized the church up to and beyond
the time of Augustine. American civility is
secular, but its roots are New Testament.

Cuddihy realizes the genuine dilemma in
which this places any faith that claims to bear
witness to an ultimate truth. The bulk of his
book deals with the struggle of four major
faith-claims of this sort: Protestant claims for
salvation in Christ alone, Roman Catholic
claims that there is no salvation outside the
church, Jewish claims to be the chosen people
of God, and Marxist claims for the victory of
the proletariat in a revolutionary class strug-
gle. Of these the chapter on Judaism is the
most informative and fullest. The Roman
Catholic chapter centers on John Courtney
Murray’s theological affirmation of American
democracy rooted in the natural law for secu-
lar purposes which do not affect the church’s
ultimate religious claim. The chapter on
Protestantism deals exclusively with Reinhold
Niebuhr’s developing relations with the Jew-

ish community and its effect on his under-
standing of the universal truth claim of
Christian faith. There is finally a study of
the way Marxist ideas have been absorbed
and relativized in American sociology.

Here lies the basic problem of the book.
As a description of American behavior it has
value. As a theological statement of the rela-
tion between faith, politics and culture, it is
suggestive but needs much qualification. As a
description of the theology of culture, at
least in Protestantism and Catholicism, it
trivializes what is going on. The statement of
Murray’s and of Niebuhr’s ideas is clear and
accurate as far as it goes. Neglected however
is the fact that the Christian church in all its
communions continues to wrestle, both in
theology and practice, with the question of
the form of its life and teaching which will
be a faithful witness to Christ’s claim over the
whole of American life, and which will there-
fore be truly missionary. The problem is not
settled by Catholic natural law doctrine or by
Protestant self-criticism and repentance. Nor
is there, as Cuddihy himself recognizes in a
kind of undercurrent to his thought, a simple
continuity between New Testament humility
and American civility. There are too many
elements of collective self-interest in the latter
which need the prophetic judgment of the
Gospel, which seems by its very nature un-
civil. One should read No Offense as a stimu-
lating aperqu of Protestant spirituality in the
American scene by a Catholic and a sociolo-
gist. As such it may help us each to reflect
more deeply about a proper theology of
American culture.

Charles C. West

The Center of Christianity , by John
Hick. Harper & Row, San Francisco,
CA, 1978. Pp. 128. $6.95.

During the last twenty years John Hick
has published an impressive number of pro-
vocative and imaginative essays on topics in
theology and the philosophy of religon. Al-
though he holds the chair of H. G. Wood
Professor of Theology at the University of
Birmingham in England, Hick clearly is more
a philosopher of religion than a systematic or
dogmatic theologian. As a philosopher he has
examined some of the basic claims of the
Christian tradition and has subjected them to
rational inquiry. In so doing he has raised a

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

host of important questions for the Christian
church and its theologians. The Center oj
Christianity is the second edition of Chris
tianity at the Centre (first published in 1968).
It is both an introduction to what Hick
considers basic issues confronting Christian
faith today and a summary of the positions
Hick has been arguing during the past twenty
years. For the most part it is free from tech-
nical theological jargon and unnecessary foot-
notes, and probably could be used in an intro-
ductory college religion course or by churches
for adult education.

Hick’s argument is that Jesus of Nazareth
stands at the center of Christianity and that
“the primary and central fact” in Christian
faith “remains the impact of Jesus of Naza-
reth upon mankind.” What we see in the
figure of Jesus, Hick argues, is a man who
was “marvellously open to God, living con-
sciously in the divine presence and respon-
sively to the divine purpose.” Jesus possessed
an “intense God-consciousness” which mani-
fested itself in his self-giving love and his
treatment of other people as children of God.
In the life and teaching of Jesus we en-
counter that divine reality who is self-giving
love itself, a love that carries with it a moral
demand that we “strive towards the human
perfection for which he has made us.” Faith
in the God who encounters us in Jesus is not
simply a matter of assenting to certain propo-
sitions nor is it some form of bet or religious
wager. Faith, as Hick describes it, is an inter-
pretative capacity which enables us to “ex-
perience life as divinely created and ourselves
as living in the unseen presence of God.”

In the last two chapters Hick discusses the
practical difference faith makes, some of the
intellectual questions that have been raised
against Christian faith, and what Christian
faith has to say about non-Christians and
life after death. Most of these themes have
been developed in greater detail in Hick’s
other books, especially in Evil and the God
oj Love, God and the Universe oj Faiths, and
Death and Eternal Life.

Those who respond in faith to the self-
giving love revealed in Jesus of Nazareth are
called not to a life characterized by divine
commands or moral rules, but to a disposi-
tion and a posture in the world that reflects
the reality of this love. Having experienced
this self-giving love and its demands Chris-
tians should respond by living in openness to
others with an “other-regarding outlook.”

171

Furthermore a proper understanding of self-
giving love and sensitivity to the plurality of
religious faiths in the world means that the
traditional position that salvation is only for
Christians is no longer tenable. Christians
should see God at the center of things and
interpret the eschatological images of other
world religions “not as definitive doctrines
but as pointers to an unknown reality which
lies beyond our vision,” pointers which con-
verge and direct us along a common path.

In response to the challenge posed by the
reality of evil, Hick argues that the majority
position in the Christian tradition, the Augus-
tinian position, has serious logical, historical,
and moral problems. In its place he argues for
“a viable alternative,” a theodicy derived from
the Irenaean tradition which does not mini-
mize the reality of evil but which depicts the
world as a place for soul-making. In Hick’s
theodicy Jesus’ death was the supreme evil
because it represents “the rejection of the
highest possibility of our own human nature.”
His position on theodicy leads Hick to de-
velop two other themes: eschatological veri-
fication and his interpretation of “eternal
life.” If the world is a place for soul-making
then death presents an obvious problem, since
there seem to be few people who reach per-
fection before they die. Hick’s response is
that evil is by no means good, but that it
serves a good end and must be interpreted
from this eschatological perspective. Death
itself is not evil but resembles sleep. It is the
termination of one stage of our immortal
existence which leads finally “to a total puri-
fication from evil desire and a final entry into
the conscious presence of infinite Goodness.”

Hick does not respond in this book to the
critical questions that have been raised about
his arguments. For example, Hick’s belief
that we have access to Jesus’ consciousness is
difficult to defend in light of the discoveries
of modern biblical scholarship. Repeatedly
Hick speaks of “Jesus’ consciousness of God”
and he seems to think we know a great deal
about Jesus’ thoughts and self-understanding.
At some points (for example, his discussion
of the christological titles on pp. 27-30), Hick
seems to be aware of the contributions of
biblical scholarship, but elsewhere he uses
scripture and speaks of Jesus as though there
were no critical problems. A case in point is
Hick’s discussion of the church. He suggests
that Jesus founded the church, that he created
“a community, a living corporate entity, a

172

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

body of people of which the original nucleus
was the group of disciples” (p. 67). One
would like to see what evidence Hick has
that Jesus understood his apostles to be “a
living corporate entity.”

Equally disturbing is Hick’s theodicy and
his interpretation of life after death. If the
world is a place for soul-making, if Jesus
represents a human possibility (“what we
may all ultimately become”), and if death is
but the boundary between this world and
the next stage in a series of “lives to come,”
one cannot help wondering what has become
of the doctrine of justification and the Chris-
tian understanding of grace. The image of
the Kingdom of God, as Hick interprets it,
becomes more a curse than a blessing, more
a burden than a source of hope. Human
beings labor in this life and in the lives that
await them on the other side of death under
the impossible demand of “gradual growth
of the human self towards its perfection.” It
is difficult to know what grace and the for-
giveness of sins mean in Hick’s scheme of
things.

The ambiguity concerning justification is
indicative of a larger problem in Hick’s book.
Although he argues that Jesus of Nazareth is
the starting-point and the center of Christian-
ity (p. 15), Hick does not always consistently
hold to that methodological position. Often
it seems that the theological center gives way
to Hick’s speculative, philosophical interests.
It is far from clear how one moves from
Jesus of Nazareth to what Hick calls the
“likelihood” of a series of lives in other
worlds.

There is much in this book and in the rest
of Hick’s work that is worth reading and
thinking about. His arguments are creative
and original and his insistence that Christian
faith be subjected to rational investigation is
admirable. Although he occasionally over-
states his case, his arguments against the tra-
ditional interpretations of incarnation, theod-
icy, and the status of non-Christians should
be carefully considered. They deserve a
thoughtful response.

George W. Stroup

Spren Kierkegaard’s Journals and Pa-
pers, ed. and trans. by Howard V. Hong
& Edna H. Hong (assisted by Gregor
Malantschuk). Indiana University

Press, Bloomington, Ind., 1967-78. Seven
volumes. $145.00 complete set; individ-
ual volumes from $20.00 to $35.00.

People who are not Kierkegaard scholars
ought to know about this edition of Kierke-
gaard’s Journals , which though massive, is
still only a selection from the twenty-volume
Danish original ( Papirer , eds. Heiberg-Kuhr-
Torsting) plus the two volumes of letters and
documents (ed. Thulstrup) and hitherto un-
published material now appearing as supple-
ments to the Papirer (also ed. Thulstrup).
It would appear at first sight that only the
professional specialist ought to be concerned,
since Kierkegaard’s twenty-one books should
be more than enough to keep one busy with-
out the need to trouble oneself with other
material. That is certainly the way I felt when
I, as an ordinary teacher of Kierkegaard and
sundry other people, first opened these vol-
umes. Happily, I soon found them immensely
rewarding in two ways.

First, the editors have rearranged the ma-
terial and grouped it under various topics, so
that the material in the first Jour volumes
does not stand in the order in which it was
composed. Here is a sample of the organizing
topics: freedom, inwardness, ethics, com-
munication. These subject headings are ar-
ranged alphabetically, with a table of contents
in each volume. Thus a person who has an
interest in a particular idea or theme in
Kierkegaard can quickly locate many relevant
passages from his journals on that item. Since
the material under each subject heading is
arranged as far as possible chronologically,
one can detect whatever changes in emphasis
or direction there may be on a theme. The
number of topics is very extensive; for ex-
ample, there are fifty-three in the first volume
and forty-three in the second. Unlike the first
four volumes just described, the fifth and
sixth consist of autobiographical material and
letters arranged chronologically. But the
seventh volume, which is an index to the
entire set, makes it easy to find what one
wants in them as well.

The second happy discovery was the great
help I received with some things that have
puzzled me in Kierkegaard’s books. For ex-
ample, Kierkegaard’s own position vis-a-vis
the reform of the church was greatly illu-
mined for me by just a couple of pages
found by consulting the index — material

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

173

which without this set I would never have
known about. I was so excited when I found
it that I said to myself, “If for nothing else,
this would be worth the price of the volume.”

There are many aids to the reader besides
those mentioned so far. Each volume has a
table which correlates its entries with the
Danish Papirer , plus a composite table to the
set in Volume Seven. So a person can deter-
mine the chronological sequence by these
references. Each volume also gives a six-page
chronology of Kierkegaard’s life, with the
publication of each work. Volume One has a
bibliography of Kierkegaard’s works in Eng-
lish translation, with secondary sources in
English. In addition, the first four volumes
have extensive notes and commentary (a total
of some four hundred pages) which give a
brief account of the basic concepts which
serve as the organizing rubrics of the vol-
umes. The commentary is supplied by G. M.
Malantschuk, Kierkegaard Research Fellow,
University of Copenhagen; the editors sup-
ply bibliographic aids under each of the
rubrics. The fifth and sixth volumes contain
notes only.

The editors explain that they first made
their own selection (but not the basis of it)
and then checked their choice against the
actual use made of the Papirer by various
Kierkegaard scholars in several countries, to
confirm their own judgment and to expand
the selection. They also checked their choices
with other editions of selections in German,
French, Italian, and Danish.

A few blemishes in this magnificent
achievement were detected. I found no reason
why item 4151 is listed under “Psychology”
in the Index (and the reference to the Papirer
is given as IX A 353 in the text, but IX A 354
in the Index). Item 4161, also listed in the
Index under “Psychology,” has only a tan-
gential connection to psychology. But to so
quibble is indeed to quibble; for those of us
who have hitherto had access to the Journals
primarily only through the one-volume selec-
tion by Dru, this splendid edition is indeed
an eye-opener.

Diogenes Allen

Reaping the Whirlwind: A Christian
Interpretation of History , by Langdon
Gilkey. The Seabury Press, New York,
N.Y., 1976. Pp. 446. $17.50.

In this book Langdon Gilkey makes an
important contribudon to the continuing
discussion of eschatology and history, espe-
cially as it relates to the political dimen-
sions of Christian faith and the possibilities
of hope within history. Quite likely the book
will be spurned by some liberation theolo-
gians as one more example of western ideol-
ogy, but that will be unfortunate. Gilkey
takes seriously the claims of liberation theol-
ogy, but his appreciation is tempered by the
conviction that the theological giants of the
past generation, particularly Reinhold Nie-
buhr and Paul Tillich, must be reckoned with
in any attempt to formulate a theological
interpretation of history. In the broadest
sense, therefore, the book is Gilkey’s attempt
to forge a synthesis between the tradition of
Niebuhr and Tillich, on the one hand, and
that of the more recent eschatological-libera-
tion theologies, on the other. It is a risky
enterprise, but I think it comes off rather
well.

The fundamental problem with the escha-
tological theologies, according to Gilkey, lies
in their inability to speak intelligibly of God’s
relation to the present. Although Gilkey’s
critique is overdone, the basic point is well
taken. A God who creates “from the future”
has as much responsibility for this present as
any future present. The eschatological hope,
therefore, for a future liberating action of
God is credible only if we are able to speak
meaningfully of God’s action in the present.
To use more traditional language, eschatology
(God’s work in and from the future) pre-
supposes providence (God’s purposive work
in the world at large).

The attempt to articulate a doctrine of
providence begins with an ontology of his-
tory, which Gilkey, like Tillich, believes is
both possible and necessary. However, Til-
lich’s categories of self and world are too
static for this task, and Gilkey opts for the
more dynamic Whiteheadian categories of
freedom and destiny. Thus history “moves”
and is experienced in this interplay of free-
dom and destiny, this bringing together of
the historical given with the actualization of
new possibilities. In a move very similar to
that made in his earlier Naming the Whirl-
wind, Gilkey argues that our experience of
history, especially as manifest in political ac-
tion and political judgment, is inexplicable
apart from some principle of ultimacy. Hence
it appears that the horizon of history “as we

174

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

experience it in communal life is not as ‘secu-
lar’ as our age . . . has supposed.” The im-
plication is that an adequate interpretation of
history must be a theological interpretation.

Under the conditions of actual existence,
however, one is aware also of estrangement,
the warping of freedom and destiny and their
transformation into sin and fate, respectively.
It is here that the relevance of Christianity
appears, for if one is to continue to affirm
that history does have meaning, then natural
theology must be superseded by kerygmatic
theology, i.e., the ontology of history must
give way to the symbols of judgment and
redemption. This move is not to be inter-
preted as part of one long argument, and
Gilkey’s “Interlude on Method” in chapters
5 and 6 symbolizes and gives emphasis to
the methodological shift between the phe-
nomenology of history in Part I and the
Christian interpretation of history in Part III.

In Part III, after analyzing the view of
providence in Augustine and Calvin and ex-
ploring the elements of the modern historical
consciousness, Gilkey offers a critique of the
understanding of providence in nineteenth
century liberal theology, twentieth century
Krisis theology, and the recent eschatological
theologies. From this critique evolve certain
principles that are woven into the construc-
tive argument of chapters 10-12. The basic
thesis is that each of these theological move-
ments oversimplified its interpretation of his-
tory by allowing one symbol of God’s activity
in history to eclipse the others: Liberalism
focused too exclusively on providence, Krisis
theology on Christology (Incarnation), and
eschatological theology on eschatology. Gil-
key argues that a theological interpretation
of history that does justice to the way his-
tory is actually experienced must maintain a
balance between these three primary symbols.

The symbol of providence is explicated by
Gilkey in terms of Whiteheadian metaphysics,
slightly modified. Tillich-like, he suggests
that God be understood, not as one cause
among others, which would thereby abrogate
the naturalistic principle of causation or ex-
planation, but as the ground of existence, the
necessary condition of freedom and destiny.
God is both the principle of continuity in his-
torical process, the one who unifies the modes
of time and carries “forward the total destiny
of the past into the present where it is actu-
alized by freedom,” and the ground of pos-
sibility and therefore of human freedom.

The interpretation of providence in terms
of ontological structures alone, however, can-
not deal with the reality of sin which distorts
that structure. Thus providence is also ex-
perienced, as in the Old Testament prophetic
model, in the cycle of judgment and renewal,
the destruction of warped institutions and the
actualization of new forms of life. Hence the
need for political praxis to criticize and trans-
form the socio-economic order.

Following Niebuhr, however, Gilkey insists
that the possibility of sin is not eradicated by
the cycle of judgment and renewal. Political
theology is both possible and necessary, but
it cannot become the whole of the theologi-
cal task. Since freedom is the ground of both
creativity and sin, ambiguity is a permanent
feature of historical experience, persisting into
every new structure. Hence the symbol of
providence alone cannot apprehend the mean-
ing of history, but must give way to the sym-
bols of Christology and Incarnation. It is in
Jesus as the Christ, the New Being who makes
possible a new form of life, that the problem
of historical ambiguity is finally overcome.
The divine participation in the estranged
conditions of existence is the beginning of
redemption; and because the “inner and out-
er” are one history, the acceptance, forgive-
ness and healing of the unrighteous cannot be
stripped of its historical and political implica-
tions. Christology also serves as the link be-
tween providence and eschatology, because
the kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus
and manifest in him is the possibility and
norm of history, the goal of providence. As
the intention of God revealed to us in time,
the kingdom is both a lure that summons us
to actualize new possibilities within history
and the norm by which our historical achieve-
ments are to be judged.

The final chapter sketches the implications
of all this for a doctrine of God. What is
most striking here is the notion of a self-
limiting God who creates “a free contingent
being that is not God or a part of God and
whose actions are not God’s actions.” This
has profound implications for a political the-
ology, for it enables one to speak in a radical
sense of human being as cooperator Dei.

This book is pitched toward university
academic theology, but the appeal of Gilkey’s
thesis is surely much broader. I suspect, for
example, that the book will be much appre-
ciated by all those who recognize the validity
of liberation theology while holding fast to

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

175

the tradition of Niebuhr and Tillich. What
emerges in these pages is a creative rework-
ing of Niebuhr and Tillich that heightens
the elements of temporality and sociality in
human existence and offers a very original
interpretation of providence. In addition, Gil-
key is an articulate interpreter of both his-
torical and contemporary thought, and the
short descriptive sections on Bloch, White-
head, Augustine, and others are lucid and
helpful. The book deserves the serious atten-
tion of academic circles, but it also has much
to contribute to any careful reader interested
in theology and politics.

John C. Shelley, Jr.

Franklin College

The Boo\ of Daniel (The Anchor
Bible), by Louis F. Hartman & Alex-
ander A. DiLella. Doubleday & Co.,
Garden City, N.Y., 1978. Pp. xiv +
346. $12.00.

As indicated on the title page, this volume
of The Anchor Bible series has been pre-
pared by two distinguished biblical scholars
from the faculty of the Catholic University
of America. Father Hartman, professor of
Semitic languages, who was asked to be the
sole author of the work, completed before
his untimely death in 1970, the translation,
text-critical apparatus, and explanatory notes
of all twelve chapters of Daniel as well as the
commentary on chapters 1-9. After his death
Alexander A. DiLella, professor of Old Testa-
ment, completed the volume, writing the
commentary on chapters 10-12 as well as the
whole Introduction.

The book is divided into two main sec-
tions: the Introduction (pp. 3-1 10) and Com-
mentary (pp. 127-315), with a Selected Bibli-
ography (pp. m-124) and a short Appendix
which includes the translation of Susanna,
Bel, and the Dragon.

The Book of Daniel is one of the most
fascinating portions of Scripture, and for sev-
eral reasons, one of the most difficult. It is
divided into two roughly equal parts: Chap-
ters 1-6 are six midrashic or edifying stories,
narrated in the third person, and Chapters 7-
12 contain four apocalypses in the first per-
son form. The simple and easily remembered
tales of the first part are told about Daniel,
with no indication that he wrote them him-

self since he is referred to in the third person.
The second part describes four visions seen
by Daniel and apparently written by him,
since the first person is used in the account.
These two disparate sections, composed of a
number of independent elements, as well
as substantial glosses or interpretations
throughout the book, point to a multiple
authorship and a long, complicated history of
composition covering the period from about
the third century B.C. to 140 B.C. (pp. n-
14).

Another feature that makes the canonical
Book of Daniel different from every other
book of the Bible is its peculiar bilingual
character: Hebrew 1:1-2:43 and 8-12, and
Aramaic 2:48-7:28. The authors of this com-
mentary hold to the view that all twelve
chapters had originally been composed in
Aramaic, but in order to ensure canonical
recognition the beginning (1:1-2:143) and
the end (8-12) were translated into Hebrew.
This theory of an Aramaic original for the
book leads to a better understanding of the
Hebrew text which in places failed to render
accurately the presumed Aramaic of the Ur-
text (pp. 14-15).

Besides the material just discussed, the In-
troduction contains a wealth of information
on all matters of importance regarding the
content, sources, versions and practical value
of the Book of Daniel. Some of the subjects
dealt with are: “Place in the Canon” ( 25L) ,
“The Hasidic Origin of the Book” (43k),
“The Romance of the Successful Courtier”
(55k), “The Greek Form of Daniel” (76k),
etc.

In the chapter on “The Historical Back-
ground” (pp. 28-42), the author indicates
how modern scholarship has thrown new
light on the origin and meaning of the
“historical framework” of the four successive
world kingdoms in Dan. 2 and 7. To the
bibliography cited in the discussion may be
added S. K. Eddy, The King is Dead: Studies
in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism ,
1961.

The Commentary section of the volume
(pp. 127-315) consists of the translation of
the text, notes and more full comments, both
general and detailed. The translation is quite
free in many places. A few spot passages may
be noted to show the character of the exegeti-
cal work and comments. The date of 606
B.C. (“in the third year ... of Jehoiakim,”
Dan. 1:1) is of course spurious and may have

176

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

been inferred from such passages as 2 Kings
24:1 and 2 Chron. 36:5-7.

The search for the mysterious figure of
Darius the Mede still goes on without any
success (Dan. 6:1, 9:1). He is a completely
fictitious character who emerges as the result
of confusion and hazy memories in the minds
of the authors of Daniel (pp. 36, 191).

The “one like a son of man” (RSV) be-
comes “one in human likeness” in The An-
chor Bible translation. “Just as the four hor-
rifying and vile beasts” (7:3-7) are not real
animals but symbols, pure and simple, of the
pagan kingdoms of the Babylonians, Medes,
Persians and Greeks, so too the “one in hu-
man likeness” is not a real individual, celesdal
or terrestrial, but is only a symbol of “the
holy ones of the Most High,” a title given,
as we shall see, to the faithful Jews — men,
women, and children — who courageously
withstood the persecution of Antiochus IV
Epiphanes. Hence, there seems to be no mys-
tery as to the meaning and background of
the “one in human likeness” (p. 87).

The historical framework of the four king-
doms (chaps. 2 & 7) is followed by a fifth
kingdom, set up by God and eternal in dura-
tion (2:44-5; 7:27). In 12:1-3 the apocalyptist
sees the terrible persecution of Antiochus
Epiphanes followed by a resurrection of faith-
ful Jews to eternal life in God’s eternal king-
dom. Only God can overcome the power of
evil embodied in Antiochus Epiphanes and
vindicate the faith of the holy ones.

This commentary on Daniel, composed
with the biblical scholar and interested lay
reader in mind, is a useful addition to the
literature on this enigmatic book. The prob-
lems are clearly presented and discussed in
the light of the most recent research on these
matters. Above all, the profound religious
and human dimensions of the Daniel stories,
with their emphasis on hope and deliverance
for all men and women of faith who must
suffer for their beliefs, are never lost sight
of in the exposition of the text.

Charles T. Fritsch

Theology as Narration: A Commen-
tary on the Boo\ of Exodus , by George
A. F. Knight. Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1976. Pp. 209. $5.95 (paper).

This is a book whose subtitle is indispen-
sable, for it is not a systematic treatment of
“theology as narration” but a rather straight-
forward commentary on Exodus. The title
comes from the author’s laudable attempt to
treat the text of Exodus as a wholistic narra-
tive, rather than a jumbled mixture of vari-
ous literary sources and traditions. Knight as-
serts that “some one person . . . wrote Exo-
dus, in the same sense that some one person
wrote Matthew’s Gospel” (xi). This person
he identifies as “Ex,” a redactor who was at
work c. 515 B.C. under the influence of the
newly constructed second Temple and the
great festival of Passover (Ezr 6.19). It was
Ex who assembled the various sources (J,
E, D, P) into final narrative form.

One can only applaud the attempt to deal
with the final shape of the text. Equally ap-
pealing are Knight’s frequent efforts to sup-
port a Jewish-Christian dialogue; his em-
phasis on the primary importance of grace
with respect to “law” in Exodus, and how
this involves political liberation; his honest
confrontation with hard questions (at Pass-
over, 12.29-32 — “does God kill babies?” — p.
92). Despite a clear conservative strain
throughout the book, Knight castigates
“fundamentalist literalism and biblicism”
(54). At numerous points there is an overt
application of the text to the situation of
contemporary ministry.

Despite these positive features, the com-
mentary as a whole suffers from a number of
major interpretive problems, only a few of
which can be mentioned here. Knight’s as-
sertions about the final redactor “Ex” are
not substantiated by any sustained argument.
Moreover, except for frequent references to
the “story” or “picture” form of theological
expression in the text, there is no treatment
of the hermeneutical problems involved in
speaking of a final “author.” While Knight
often refers to the different sources in a given
pericope, he refuses to deal with form-or
tradition-criticism (cf. p. x), a decision
which ignores the depth perception which
such disciplines provide (e.g. the ways in
which the forms and traditions of the pro-
phetic “office” pervade Exodus 3-4). One
must also question the extent to which
Knight has allowed his judgment about the
historical situation of “Ex” to color his in-
terpretation of the text. Thus not only the
situation of the second Temple is involved.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

177

but there are repeated references to Second
Isaiah as a major influence on the final text
of Exodus (e.g. pp. xi, 1-2, 36-37).

There are some very annoying attempts to
treat the text as a straight historical docu-
ment. Some of these discussions involve the
author in unnecessary and sometimes almost
humorous irrelevancies (is Moses’ age at
death really important [50], and do we need
to bemoan the death of innocent fish in the
plague of blood [59]?)- Others lead to more
serious theological problems, some of which
are outright distortions of the text to suit
the author’s apparent bias: “Pharaoh’s order
to choke the male babies at birth seems rea-
sonable to natural man, especially today when
millions in the West insist on abortion on
demand” (6; cf. 140 on Exod 21.22).

The author’s appeal for Jewish-Christian
dialogue is no doubt sincere (“Just as there
is only one Covenant, so there is also only
one Israel of God” [46], cf. xii-xiv, 26-27,
159). Nevertheless, one wonders how a Jew
would read this commentary, with all of its
importation of New Testament themes (espe-
cially the God who “empties himself” and
suffers). Even for Christians, Knight often
seems to overstate his case: “Thus there is no
discontinuity between the God of the exodus
and the God of the NT whom we meet in
the bloody figure of Christus Victor . . .”
(106).

Other exegetical and theological problems
abound. Knight frequently appeals to a dis-
tinction between religion and revelation (only
the latter, of course, is Biblical) which is ex-
tremely simplistic: “Israel does not have a
religion. Religion is that which man [sic,
and frequently] thinks about the divine”
(112). Thus the religions of Israel’s ancient
neighbors, and of the contemporary world,
are dismissed as human fabrications. The
narrative of Exodus, on the other hand, is
said to reveal “the mind of God” (a ubiqui-
tous and curious phrase). Another problem
is presented by Knight’s interpretation of the
covenant, where there is no reference to the
famous Hittite treaties, and Israel’s covenant
with Yahweh is construed by way of Hosea’s
theme of the marriage contract (e.g. 156), a
construal which obscures the political and
juridical aspects of the covenant. Similar dif-
ficulties surround the author’s attempt to
make the message of “Ex” one of universal
application, often sounding more like Paul
than P: “Thus Passover is God’s gift, through

Israel, to all men, male and female [r/d],
Jew and Gentile, bond and free alike” (95).

In summary, despite the noble intentions
of this commentary, it cannot be recommend-
ed very highly, primarily because of its seri-
ous exegetical and theological problems.

Thomas W. Mann

Jonathan Loved David: Homosexu-
ality in Biblical Times, by Tom Horn-
er. The Westminster Press, Philadel-
phia, Pa., 1978. Pp. 163. $5.95.

Tom Horner’s Jonathan Loved David is
a book about homosexuality in biblical times.
The book’s goal is to prove that Scripture, so
far from condemning homosexuality, can be
shown to treat it as an accepted practice.
Thus Dr. Horner thrusts himself into the
midst of a major church issue. This book is
intended for interested laity and clergy.
While the reader is not expected to be ex-
pert in Biblical Criticism, the book is rooted
in this science. Unfortunately the book fre-
quently uproots itself by going too far in ap-
pealing to the popular reader, e.g., in its
frequent use of the King James’ Version.
In his attempt to appeal to a popular audi-
ence Horner, as shall be shown below, fre-
quently neglects to treat scholarly arguments
against his interpretation.

Much of Horner’s argument is flawed.
One example must suffice to illustrate his
failure to take advantage of accepted schol-
arship. This example is taken from the
premier place to begin a critique of Horner,
his chapter “David and Jonathan.” Having
satisfied himself that tenth century B.C. Israel
was characterized by a “society that for two
hundred years had lived in the shadow of
the Philistine culture, which accepted homo-
sexuality; . . .” (p. 27f), Horner states “we
have every reason to believe that a homo-
sexual relationship existed” (p. 28) between
David and Jonathan! Horner’s arguments
rest on his interpretation of 1 Sam 18:1-4;
20:3of; 2 Sam 1:19-27, an interpretation lack-
ing any discussion of the word love, ’aheb.
Surely it is dangerous to assume that the
meaning of the term ' aheh is obviously sex-
ual. M. Fishbane in “The Treaty Background
of Amos 1 : 1 1 and Related Matters.” JBL
89/3 (1970), pp. 314b cites 1 Sam 18:1-4 as
a biblical parallel to the Vassal-Treaties of

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

178

Esarhaddon. He finds 'aheb to be a covenantal
term. This use also occurs in 1 Kg 5:15 (EVV
5:1). Jonathan’s calling David his brother,
1 Sam 20:9, is paralleled in 1 Kg 9:13. Surely
Horner would not want to suggest that David
and Solomon were so promiscuous as to have
shared a homosexual liaison with Hiram! It
is much more likely that in both 1 Sam and
1 Kg we encounter covenantal language. Here
'aheb is a technical term of obvious meaning
to the participants just as, for instance, in-
tercourse means conversation in some con-
texts and in others a town in Pennsylvania.
To assume that this is a tale of homosexual
love overlooks the more obvious meaning,
Jonathan and David participated in a politi-
cal covenant.

Dr. Horner is on safer ground in his chap-
ters entitled “The ‘Dogs’ or homosexual
'Holy Men’ ” and “All These Abominations.”
He notes that all forms of cult prostitution
were anathema to Yahwism. Horner goes on
to assert that in condemning homosexuality
the Israelite was actually censuring male cult
prostitution. The question Horner leaves un-
answered is whether or not the Yahwist either
could have or cared to differentiate between
the homosexuality of a cult prostitute and
the homosexuality of a Yahwist? Or did the
ancient theologians see the two as identical?
To jump several centuries Paul’s argument
in Rom 1:22-27 could be interpreted this way.

The crux of Horner’s argument is found in
his concluding chapter, “Jesus and Sexu-
ality.” He states:

. . . when the leader and, probably, most
members of his group were single, it is
only natural that some observers of primi-
tive Christianity are going to suspect that
homosexuality could have been a factor in
this little group to a greater or lesser de-
gree. (p. 1 17)

Horner’s style is to present an extreme posi-
tion, then refute it or propose one which
in light of the first seems less extreme. He
finally concludes:

What is conclusive is that it is impossible
to conceive of Jesus as displaying hostility
toward anyone because of his or her sex-
ual preferences — especially the kind of
hostility that some of his followers have
displayed toward others throughout history
on account of their homosexuality, (p. 121)

How does David’s relationship to Jonathan

or Ruth’s to Naomi enhance our apprehen-
sion of Horner’s conclusion? Especially in
light of the poor scholarship involved in the
chapter on David and Jonathan it would
seem that Horner’s argument would pro-
ceed more clearly without any appeal to these
O.T. figures. Yet if one removes the treat-
ment of David and Jonathan, as well as his
even more problematical treatment of Ruth
and Naomi, then Horner is incapable of elicit-
ing any clear positive example of homosex-
uality from the Bible. The most he can say
is that Jesus, had he been confronted with
the issue, would not have treated homosex-
uality any differently than he handled adul-
tery. But then are we not left wondering if
Jesus would have said “Go and sin no
more!?”

Dr. Horner has totally neglected what may
be the most important question in any practi-
cal study of Biblical Ethics. He has not dis-
cussed the authority of the Bible. Why should
we care about the homosexual practices of
ancient peoples? How is the Bible normative
for us? Does he believe that his arguments
facilitate dialogue between peoples? This
book might have facilitated dialogues had
Horner’s scholarship been more careful, but,
alas, it was not. His grandstanding and un-
convincing argument on David and Jonathan
obfuscates his purpose. Biblical Theology is,
of course, of vital importance to the church.
But this book can only be of service if it is
paired with a discussion of Gen i:26f; 2:18,
23f. How does the call to heterosexuality im-
pact the affirmation of homosexuality? If this
question was answered then a service would
really have been provided.

Peter R. Powell, Jr.

Handbook of Biblical Criticism, by
Richard N. Soulen. John Knox Press,
Atlanta, Ga., 1976. Pp. 200. $7.95 (pa-
per).

Richard N. Soulen is associate professor of
New Testament at the School of Theology,
Virginia Union University, Richmond. His
Handbook, of Biblical Criticism arises out of
a sensitivity to the pedagogical dilemma pre-
sented by the fact that classroom lectures and
introductory texts intended for the beginning
student and non-specialist in the critical study
of the Bible all too often presuppose a knowl-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

179

edge of the field few possess. As an initial
effort to address this pedagogical need,
Soulen’s Handbook, provides the reader with
more than 500 technical terms, phrases and
names basic to Biblical criticism.

The entries in Handbook follow six cate-
gories: Methodologies; Technical Terms and
Phrases; Research Tools and Texts; Names;
Theological Terms; and Abbreviations. Ar-
ranged alphabetically with complete cross-
references, Handbooks entries range from
such basics as “Concordance” and “Lection-
ary” to more exotic terminology such as
Epinicion and Peripeteia. Users of Handbook
will appreciate Soulen’s concise treatment of
those ubiquitous terms and phrases taken
from German Biblical scholarship, such as
Gattung, Sitz im Leben, and Uberheferungs-
geschichte, which frequently prove so trou-
blesome to the novice. The 60-plus brief
biographical sketches of key figures in the his-
tory of Biblical research, from Albright and
Alt to Wellhausen and Wrede, are as inter-
esting as they are informative.

Professor Soulen carefully notes that the
definitions contained in Handbook "are of-
fered as working definitions, not more” (p.
8). These “working definitions” are designed
to serve as an “abbreviated introduction to
the methodologies of Biblical criticism” as
well as to facilitate the student’s “use of estab-
lished tools of scholarly research” (p. 7). Al-
though Handbook is a non-technical refer-
ence work, it is not devoid of detail. Soulen’s
inclusion of a complete listing of the Nag
Hammadi Codices currently published by
E. J. Brill (Leiden) and his useful listing of
the four systems of Hebrew transliteration
currently in use in Great Britain, Germany
and America, are just two examples of some
of the particulars one ordinarily does not find
in a non-technical handbook.

In these days of continually escalating book
costs, Professor Soulen’s Handbook °f Bibli-
cal Criticism offers a wealth of information
under one cover at a welcome price. It is
truly a valuable vade mecum for the non-
specialist, whether busy pastor, student, or
layperson.

William A. Hartfelder, Jr.
Hebrew Union College
Cincinnati, O.

Biblical Backgrounds of the Middle
East Conflict, by Georgia Harkness &

Charles F. Kraft. Abingdon Press,
Nashville, Tenn., 1976. Pp. 208. $7.95.

In the Introduction to Biblical Backgrounds
of the Middle East Conflict, Dr. Georgia
Harkness states that an eschatological inter-
pretation of Scripture vis-a-vis the modern
Middle East is not the intention of the book.
Rather, she states that the focus of this survey
is “the political and social history of the peo-
ple, and hence the bearing of this past upon
the conditions of the present” (p. 13). How-
ever, that the actual focus of the book does
indeed extend beyond a socio-political ex-
amination of the past’s impact upon the pres-
ent is revealed both by the publisher and by
Dr. Harkness herself!

The Publisher’s Foreword states that Dr.
Harkness “set out to write this book to help
others understand the past as a ‘prologue’
to the present and the future ” (p. 5 italics
mine). Similarly, elsewhere in the Introduc-
tion, Dr. Harkness writes, that the book
“deals mainly with the past, which should
help us to understand the present, and to
judge with some measure of probability as
to the future" (p. n italics mine). This ap-
parent confusion of purpose is reflected
throughout the presentation of the ensuing
survey material.

Any criticism of Biblical Backgrounds must
be tempered by the unfortunate fact that Dr.
Harkness was taken ill and that her subse-
quent death cut short the completion of her
manuscript. Dr. Harkness’ survey was halted
at the point of her abridgement of the biblical
account of the United Monarchy under David
and Solomon. As a result, we do not have
a complete picture of how she would have
presented the crucial application of the book,
i.e. the bearing of the past as formative in-
fluence upon the dynamics of the present.
Dr. Charles F. Kraft, Frederick Carl Eiselen
Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at
Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary and
one-time colleague of Dr. Harkness, com-
pleted the manuscript by contributing the
final four chapters of this ten chapter book.

The fatal flaw of this effort by Drs. Hark-
ness and Kraft lies in its methodology. The
authors err in their assumption that a mere
recitation of historical excerpts juxtaposed to
selected, alleged parallels within the present
is sufficient to establish an organic cause and
effect relationship between the two. For ex-

i8o

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

ample, following her five page summation of
the Patriarchal Narratives in Genesis, Dr.
Harkness tells the reader that “in these stories
from the tenth century B.C. and somewhat
later we see indications of kinship [between
Arab and Jew], and also of clashes, fore-
shadowing what was centuries later to become
the Arab-Israeli conflict” (pp. 31-32). Like-
wise, Dr. Kraft directs the reader to compare
the efforts of the Zealots and the Sicarii to
oust the Romans in the years following the
death of Herod Agrippa I (44 C.E.) with
“the terrorist activities of Jewish underground
groups during the last days of the British
mandate before 1948” (pp. 136-137; p. 142,
fn. 16). The result of such unqualified com-
parisons is an oversimplification of the
complex conditions extant during these pe-
riods of historical development in the Middle
East.

Biblical Backgrounds also suffers from the
brevity of its “social and political” survey.
The 31 pages of Chapter 8 recount Jewish
experiences under the Persians, Greeks, Mac-
cabees and Romans. Chapter 9, entitled
“Jerusalem Through Three Millennia,” relates
the city’s three thousand year history and its
significance for Judaism, Christianity and
Islam within a scant 25 pages of historical
highlights. The consequences of such brevity
are most severe in the final chapter entitled
“The Past Within the Present.” The chap-
ter’s 39 pages lightly touch upon the end of
Turkish rule in Palestine, the British Man-
date, the birth of Zionism, the birth of the
State of Israel and the four Arab-Israeli wars.
The tragedy of the Jewish Holocaust under
Nazism as it affects the Middle East is inex-
cusably oversimplified to three points:

A. The Holocaust served “to galvanize
Jewish Zionism into intense activity”

(p- 179) ;

B. It “won over” Jewish opinion in the
United States to Zionism “and to the
establishment of an independent Jewish
state in Palestine” (p. 180);

C. It released such a flood of European
Jewish refugees in the immediate post-
war years that Palestinians “have asked
why they should be made to suffer . . .
for the sins of modern Europe!”
(p. 181).

Although these points are not false, yet
their isolation perpetuates an ignorance of
the wider spectrum of the social, political and
religious dimensions of the Holocaust as they

affect both the Middle East and the world
community of Arabs, Christians and Jews.
The burgeoning bibliography of recent years
by Christian writers on the Holocaust is only
one indicator of the complexity of the topic.

One must question the validity of a survey
which seeks to describe the socio-political
history of the Jews within the limits of their
religious history as recorded in the Bible.
Hebrew Scripture contains much material
concerning pre-exilic Israel, but relates little
after 586 B.C.E. Biblical Backgrounds, there-
fore, commits a serious error in its complete
omission of the almost 2,000-year development
of post-biblical Rabbinic Judaism and its pre-
eminent role in the identity and survival of
the Jewish people up to the present!

In a similar manner one is struck by the
neglect of the bulk of specifically Arab factors
influencing the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is not
sufficient to employ Hebrew Scriptures as the
main source for an understanding of the
role of the Arabs in the Middle East. Cer-
tainly Arabic cultural development and iden-
tity has not languished in flaccid passivity
since the days of Ishmael! It is imperative
that there exist an awareness of the integrity
of Arab history and the significance of the
religious tenets of the prophetic civilizadon
of Islam as they exert socio-political in-
fluences upon the Middle East. The cry of
“jihad,” Islamic Holy War, has been heard
more than once during the history of the
Middle East and its present turmoil.

One must regrettably conclude that the
rubric of “past as ‘prologue’ to the present and
the future” as it is applied in Biblical Back-
grounds o) the Middle East Conflict reduces
the expansive complexity of the Arab-Israeli
conflict to an uneven oversimplification.

William A. Hartfelder, Jr.

Donum Gentilicium: New Testa-
ment Studies in Honour of David
Daube, ed. by E. Bammel, C. K. Bar-
rett, & W. D. Davies. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, New York, N.Y., 1978. Pp.
ix + 342. $37.50.

The point of the title of this book of New
Testament Studies, Donum Gentilicium, is
that Professor Daube is a Jewish scholar,
whereas the contributors are Gentiles. Pro-
fessor Daube is a world-renowned authority

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

181

on Roman law: he has held chairs in the
Faculty of Law at Aberdeen and Oxford,
and more recently (and concurrently) at
Berkeley, California, and Constance, South
Germany. He is also known for his studies
in Jewish law and for the illumination that
he has brought to bear from this area on the
interpretation of the New Testament. His
book on The New Testament and Rabbinic
Judaism (London, 1956) is well-known as an
outstanding contribution to both Christian
and Jewish studies. One of his essays in that
work left its mark on the rendering of John
4:9 in The New English Bible, namely, “Jews
and Samaritans, it should be noted, do not use
vessels in common.”

The present book contains contributions
from twenty scholars — American, British,
Canadian, Finnish, German, and Swedish.
Eight of them are in English, twelve in Ger-
man. W. D. Davies writes a warmly personal
foreword and the twenty studies are followed
by a “Bibliographia Daubeana,” stretching
from 1932 to 1977.

Several essays draw attention to the inter-
relatedness of Judaism and Christianity.
C.F.D. Moule offers an understanding of for-
giveness in Christianity and Judaism under
which God’s pardon is not merited, but is
nonetheless conditional on one’s capacity to
receive it (“forgive us as we have forgiven”).
Walter Zimmerli compares the beatitudes of
Matthew 5 with the Old Testament, and Otto
Michel shows how Jewish visionary motifs
can help the reader to understand the Da-
mascus road traditions of Saul/Paul. Joachim
Jeremias explores the Jewish cultic associa-
tions of the Last Supper. Barnabas Lindars
discusses the points of resemblance and dif-
ference between Jesus and the Pharisaic
teachers. J.D.M. Derrett looks at the parable
of the friend at midnight from a fresh per-
spective, concluding with comments on Jesus’
midrashic technique. C. K. Barrett carries
forward the debate on the relation between
the Jewish shaliach and the Christian apostle.
E. P. Sanders deals with the fulfillment of
the Mosaic law in Paul and Judaism. K. H.
Rengstorf, dealing with Rom. n:i6f., not
only uses Rabbinic analogies to explain the
metaphor of the olive tree, but thereby ex-
plains the structure of the Epistle itself.
Birgen Gerhardsson relates I Cor. 13 to Paul’s
rabbinical heritage, and Harald Riesenfeld
sees in I Cor. 13:3 an allusion to Dan. 3:96
(LXX). Wilhelm Wuellner explores the

background of the triad “wise . . . mighty
. . . noble” of I Cor. 1:26. Matthew Black
looks at the Jewish and Christian origins of
the two witnesses of Rev. n:3f. (he could
also have mentioned the curious seventeenth-
century sect of the Muggletonians whose two
founders, Ludowicke Muggleton and his
cousin, John Reeve, claimed to be the two
witnesses!). Ethelbert Stauffer writes on the
repeated commendation of young men in the
Greek History of Susanna, and argues that
neoteros in I Pet. 5:5, I Tim. 5:1k, Titus 2:6
reflects the “Tamid” (a sort of rabbinic ordi-
nand). Miss J. M. Ford analyzes the imagery
of the heavenly Jerusalem in the Book of
Revelation in relation to orthodox Judaism.
Hugo Odeberg (now deceased) presents some
curiosities from the cosmology of the Zohar.
B. Freudenberger studies the meaning of
Romanas caerimonias recognoscere in the
Acts of Cyprian. Ernst Bammel reflects on the
remark ascribed to Akiba that poverty in the
daughters of Jacob is as lovely as a red bridle
on the neck of a white horse. Morton Smith
considers the permanence of the forced con-
versions to Judaism under the Hasmonaeans,
and Gosta Lindeskog outlines the beginnings
of the so-called “Jewish-Christian” problem.

As the reader will perceive, these essays
cover a wide range of approaches and in-
terests, many of which relate to the mutual
illumination of Judaism and early Christian-
ity, an approach well-exemplified by the
scholar in whose honor this book was com-
piled.

The craftsmanship of the book, it may be
remarked in conclusion, is altogether in
accord with the outstanding typographical
work for which the Clarendon Press at Ox-
ford is justly famous.

Bruce M. Metzger

Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free,
by F. F. Bruce. Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub.
Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1977. Pp.
49 1 - $! 3 - 95 -

The Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism
and Exegesis at the University of Manchester,
England, has written a comprehensive vol-
ume on the Apostle Paul that presents exten-
sive worthwhile reading and information.
F. F. Bruce (the Library of Congress card
reveals the names “Frederick Fyvie,” remind-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

182

ing us that the familiar “F. F.” of the title
page is not a name in itself) has contributed
this excellent work out of his “love for Paul”
and “to share with others something of the
rich reward which” he himself has “reaped
from the study of Paul” carried on over fifty
years (p. 15). Despite its motivation, out of
“love for Paul,” it is far from a sentimental
work, but, as one would expect from F. F.
Bruce, is, rather, written in a scholarly
manner (but for wide appeal) and offers a
wealth of facts along with a variety of
opinions highly worthy of consideration.

The only actual flaw in this undoubtedly
commendable book is its lack of a scriptural
index. The included index does indicate the
pages on which, for example, he discusses
Galatians, but one has to search through
them to find exactly where he presents his
views on Gal. 2 : 1 f. With the addition of
such an index, the value and usefulness of
this fine writing would have been greatly
enhanced. It is possible, however, that the
omission was an intentional one, if Professor
Bruce perhaps did not wish his work to be
employed as a reference work (for which it
certainly can serve) but preferred that it be
read from beginning to end consecutively.

One other point that could be seen as a
large drawback to Bruce’s book ends up, upon
further reflection, to be an asset after all.
That is, the author has determined the
structure of his book by the outline of Paul’s
activity as portrayed in Acts, the assumption
thus being that to a great extent Acts pre-
sents historical material. Acts, writes Bruce,
is a “source of high historical value” (p. 16)
and “the Paul of Acts is the historical Paul
as he was seen and depicted by a sympathetic
and accurate but independent observer” (p.
17). Initially this perspective causes someone
with less confident views on Acts as a source
of history to look askance at much of the
content of Bruce’s book, especially when Acts
is used as the “framework” (p. 17) for
Paul’s letters. But one soon discovers that the
framework is extremely beneficial and handy,
be it historical or not, and that the informa-
tion is in no way decisively colored by
Bruce’s opinions as to the framework’s his-
torical reliability. In fact, what the frame-
work does is to provide a truly interesting
perspective for viewing Paul’s letters and
life, and more important it serves as a wel-
come corrective to the danger of seeing his
letters and theology as somehow unrelated

to history, but to the contrary as letters which
both grew out of and responded to actual
historical happenings, unable to be inter-
preted apart from this grounding — an obvious
point yet often unconsciously overlooked.

The first of Bruce’s thirty-eight chapters
(the brevity of each chapter, possibly in part
due to their being an outgrowth of lecture
material, is a help towards easier reading)
deals with “The Rise of Rome,” and from
this historical background he proceeds to a
chapter on “Jews under Foreign Rule,” one
on Tarsus, ones on Paul as a Roman citizen
and as a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” one on
Jesus, one on the beginning of the Church
after the resurrection, and finally to chapter
8, on Paul the “Persecutor,” and chapter 9,
Paul the Christian. Once the reader arrives
at the subject of the Apostle Paul specifically,
the preceding historical setting proves ex-
tremely helpful in comprehending Paul as an
historical person of his own particular times
and situation.

In terms of arrangement of material, what
Professor Bruce does is to pick up material
from Paul’s letters according to how pas-
sages relate chronologically to his life, e.g.
Galatians 1, on Paul’s “conversion experi-
ence,” is discussed early on (chapter 9),
whereas other parts of Galatians are brought
up as pertinent, whether concerning his rela-
tion to the Jerusalem Church, the Antioch
incident, the place of the law, or whatever.
At the same time he brings in material from
other letters (and Acts) that relates to
whatever stage of Paul’s life is under discus-
sion. Of course, he runs into some difficulties
when this schema does not allow for the
natural inclusion of certain subjects or con-
tents of letters, e.g. his chapter on the sacra-
ments (25) does not seem particularly logi-
cally placed, but such feelings are negligible
compared to the overall benefit, already indi-
cated, of his framework.

The three outstanding features of this work
on Paul are: 1) its comprehensive inclusion
of controversial exegetical issues on, seem-
ingly, most Pauline passages; 2) its full
references to articles on these same issues (the
footnotes provide an excellent bibliography,
especially as supplemented by four pages of
bibliography, mostly books, in the back);
and 3) its clarity of expression and its fair-
ness in presenting views. Whether he is
dealing with what “kata sarka” really means
in II Cor. 5:16 (incidentally, he employs

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

Greek words, but in a way that would not
distract greatly the non-Greek reading per-
son and yet adds considerable value for the
others), what Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was
(this critic disagrees with Bruce’s insistence
on its being a physical condition [p. 135]),
whether or not Titus was circumcised, what
the historical relation is between Gal. 2 and
Acts 15, and so on — with whichever of these
endless exegetical issues he is dealing with,
the reader is exposed to a wide number of
diversified opinions, not just Bruce’s, along
with the sources for them. He presents the
issues and the views with clarity and with
fairness. For an author who could be termed
“conservative,” it is a decided tribute to him
that never does a reader have the impression
that Bruce’s conclusion on an issue is based
on any preconceived judgments but instead
always on the evidence at hand as he sees
and understands it. This attitude and pro-
cedure is appreciated, as is also the manner in
which Bruce will offer some speculative
ideas, yet cautiously warn the reader that we
simply do not know, e.g. what the source of
the “mysteries” Paul shares is (p. 143; see
e.g., I Cor. 15:51), whether or not Paul’s
“mother” (Rom. 16:13) might have been the
wife of the African Symeon who mothered
Paul during his stay in Antioch (p. 149) —
whatever the intriguing ideas speculated on,
his concluding, humble attitude is respected
and appreciated — an attitude at times absent
in the work of Biblical critics.

Bruce also has the ability to bring out
points and see insights into passages which
one could easily otherwise ignore, an ability
surely cultivated over his years of experience
with the words of Paul. For example, he
discusses the surprising point that the Early
Church never “brought to light,” so to speak,
any saying of Jesus’ on circumcision when
such a saying would assuredly and obviously
have been helpful (pp. 101 & 105). Similarly,
when Bruce brings out the probability that
Paul “still submitted to synagogue discipline”
during the stage of his career that he experi-
enced the forty lashes less one (p. 127) and
the likelihood that Paul must have directed
his persecutions against the Hellenistic dis-
ciples, most of whom had left Judea, since the
Judean churches did not know him early in
his career (p. 127), a reader who has studied
Paul quite extensively wonders why such
thoughts had not occurred to him or her
without Bruce’s direction. Such points occur

183

page after page in this book, and the end
result is an extremely stimulating one. On
few points can one readily criticize Bruce (e.g.,
that the self-sufficiency of Phil. 4:11 relates
to Christ’s spiritual self-sufficiency [p. 142]);
rather one (this reader, at least) normally
agrees with the points he makes (e.g., that
glossolalia for Paul was “of little value or
importance,”) partly because he knew it to
take place among pagans (p. 143).

Bruce’s method of following Paul’s life
and career according to the order of Acts is
highlighted by the map in the (identical)
front and back inside covers presenting Paul’s
missionary journeys. In chapter 33 Bruce
nears the end when he describes “Paul and
Roman Christianity,” but follows this up
with an entire chapter devoted to the letter
to Philemon, the contents of which he pre-
sumably could not fit in well elsewhere. Then
in chapter 35, “Principalities and Powers,” he
writes about parts of Colossians. Chapter 36,
on Ephesians, follows, because he believes it
to have been composed by Paul during his
Roman imprisonment. (Bruce discusses the
possibility of non-Pauline authorship but dis-
cards it by going through Paul’s main themes
and judging how they do appear in Ephe-
sians. At one point this critic finds him in
possible error when he justifies Ephesians 2:8,
which speaks of salvation as a past event, by
reference to Rom. 8:24, for despite the aorist
of ' ‘we were saved” in the latter passage, the
context and the “hope” in that verse may well
show that Paul is viewing salvation as not
yet completed by any means.) Although the
chapter on Ephesians presents an interesting
discussion and perspective, it seems unwar-
ranted to have its purpose be that of main-
taining Pauline authorship (this reader sees
Ephesians as clearly containing Pauline frag-
ments and “roots,” but not as a totality being
by Paul), but his comments such as the
letter’s relations to Qumran texts are certainly
of value.

In his next to final chapter Bruce cau-
tiously entertains various possible sources for
discovering what happened to Paul after Acts
closes, so to speak. He considers the Pastorals,
Clement, the Muratorian canon, and the Acts
of Peter. His own belief is that Paul was
released from prison, re-arrested, and finally
beheaded in Rome, ca. 65 (p. 450). Among
the 16 Plates Bruce includes, one is of the
inscription discovered in 1835 which is
thought to mark the place of Paul’s tomb in

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

184

Rome, a possibility favored by Bruce because
of its location in a pagan cemetery, “not the
environment which later piety would have
chosen” (p. 451).

From chapter 4 through chapter 37 the
reader is led from Paul’s birth to his death.
The author has done a praiseworthy job of
combining events and theology, of offering a
possible progression of Paul’s life and
thought, and certainly of forcing the fellow-
admirer of Paul to ground Paul’s theological
reflections in history and to refrain from
lifting them into any irrelevant, invalid ab-
stractions. Bruce has produced an amazingly
complete “compendium on Paul” and has
without doubt succeeded in sharing effectively
both his love for Paul and his insights into
him.

Perhaps Bruce’s words on Paul in his final
chapter (“Concluding Reflections”) can be
not irreverently applied to Bruce himself:
“He has something worth saying, and in say-
ing it he communicates something of him-
self. . . . And what he has to say is so
important . . (p. 457).

At the very end Bruce brings the reader
back to part of the book’s title, Apostle of the
Heart Set Free, based on II Cor. 1:17, and
speaks of Paul as a “campaigner for spiritual
liberty” (p. 474). Defending, apologizing for,
and, in a sense, excusing Paul Bruce writes
that Paul on principle denied “prejudices and
discriminations” any place in the Christian
community and “looked forward to the day
when racial, religious, sexual and social preju-
dices or discrimination” would be “banished
from the whole new creation” (p. 474). It is
as if Bruce recognizes that the man he so
admires could be accused of falling short in
relation to his own apostolic demands of
love and equality, but wants readers to un-
derstand that Paul existed, lived, in a different
situation than our own: Paul awaited the
near eschaton, yet in some sense lived in it;
we must continually live as if it were to come
tomorrow and yet as if it is never to come —
and thus put into practice now some of what
Paul — apostle of freedom — postponed.

Bruce has written an important book. It is
thorough for the scholar yet not overly com-
plicated for the non-scholar. It is for any
student of the Apostle Paul who, as Bruce,
continually seeks to know and understand
more clearly the man Paul and the words he
wrote out of his love for Christ.

Elizabeth G. Edwards

The Debate About the Bible (Iner-
rancy versus Infallibility), by Stephen
T. Davis. The Westminster Press, Phil-
adelphia, Pa., 1977. Pp. 149. $5.45 (pa-
per).

Stephen Davis’ intended audience in his
book on biblical authority is the body of
Christians who label themselves “evangeli-
cals,” but a far wider audience can readily
benefit from it. His principal concern is to
bridge the gap between two wings of evan-
gelicals — the more conservative and the less —
or rather to allow the less conservative (such
as himself) continued membership among
“evangelicals.” He also wants to prevent any
evangelical from ostracizing him/herself from
the evangelical community because of an in-
ability to accept the doctrine of inerrancy. He
observes the devisive effect of those who
insist on errancy, and with his doctrine of
infallibility he attempts — and surely succeeds
— in playing a mediating role as what could
be termed a “reconciling evangelical.”

One must say only “surely succeeds” be-
cause whether or not his success is actual is
an opinion that can rightly come solely from
one who considers him /herself an “evangeli-
cal.” (This reviewer finds adequate challenge
in struggling with being/becoming a Chris-
tian without worrying about the branch of
Christianity in which one’s membership lies.)

Davis, associate professor of Philosophy and
Religion at Claremont Men’s College, has pro-
duced a book clearly expressed, concisely
written, logically structured, soundly argued,
and in many parts helpfully outlined by
numbered points. The very progression of his
chapters witnesses to the logical mind of the
philosopher he is: His first chapter reviews
the doctrine of inerrancy held by many evan-
gelicals; each of his three succeeding chapters
picks up one of the three main, usual argu-
ments in favor of inerrancy and shows the
weaknesses, loopholes, escape-gaps, and down-
falls of each one. First there is the “Biblical
Argument,” i.e., that the Bible itself claims
inerrancy for itself; then the “Epistemological
Argument,” i.e., that if one does not know
the Bible as inerrant, one can know for
certain no doctrines of the Christian faith;
and finally the “Slippery Slide Argument,”
i.e., that if one slips away from inerrancy,
one will slip away from all evangelical posi-
tions. (He terms these arguments the EA

THE PRINCET ON SEMINARY BULLETIN

and the SSA, but why did he not call the first
the BA?) Exactly what these positions are is
never fully clarified, but he suggests that
among others three are: humanity’s lostness
in sin and need for redemption, Christ’s
bodily resurrection, and people’s need for
commitment to Christ (p. 83). In the fifth
chapter Davis turns from refuting these three
arguments for inerrancy to refuting the actual
claim itself. In the following chapter, “In-
fallibility,” he presents his own, preferred
alternative doctrine, and finally in the seventh
chapter he discusses some serious repercus-
sions (“Implications”) to take into account
for whichever of the two views one holds.

Near the beginning of his book and fre-
quently throughout (e.g., pp. 16 & 23) Davis
clarifies the distinction, for him, between
“inerrant” and “infallible,” the former pro-
fessing no errors of any sort, on any subject,
to be contained in the Bible, and the latter
professing no erroneous or misleading state-
ments related to faith and practice. As Davis
himself sees, any word can be employed to
speak of Biblical authority as long as one
qualifies it sufficiently to suit one’s own
views! He is somewhat willing to give up
“infallible” in favor of a more positive word
(note how both familiar terms state what the
Bible does not do; this reviewer is certainly
attracted to the idea of a word which states
what the Bible does do!), but partly for the
sake of tradition, he prefers to hang on to it
(pp. 1 i8f.) . (Why, this reviewer wonders, any
single word whatsoever? Perhaps to facilitate
discussion; perhaps because of some need to
be assured of a common ground.)

Since Davis’ critics will complain that he in
some sense does not say enough for the Bible,
it is interesting when he makes the com-
mendable point that inerrancy probably does
not say enough about the Bible (p. 29) ! That
is, inerrancy concerns itself with the Bible’s
factual claims and neglects to see that such
terminology is irrelevant to many of the
Bible’s literary forms, e.g., liturgy, poetry,
ethics. Davis is so clearly correct, and one
wonders how an inerrantist could deny such
a point.

Another noteworthy point made by Davis
concerns the inerrantist’s belief that actual
inerrancy lies in the autographs — the original
manuscripts — not in the manuscripts available
today. He wonders whether the inerrantist
would worship the autographs if they came
to light, despite the Bible’s command against

185

idolatry (p. 80)! (One naturally wonders,
anyway, what sort of idolatry is actually
taking place in any extremely conservative
views about biblical authority.)

A weak point in Davis’ book is his fifth
chapter, "The Case Against Inerrancy.” He
begins by giving four arguments against in-
errancy: (1) lack of support in Scripture;
(2) problems raised by inerrantist’s device of
appealing to “intention”; (3) emphasis on
the wrong tasks (i.e., minutia rather than
proclamation); and (4) illusion that all
Christianity stands or falls on the defense of
inerrancy (see p. 94). The problem is that
No. (1) simply repeats, essentially, his argu-
ments against “BA”; No. (2) is still against
inerrancy’s arguments, not quite inerrancy
itself; and Nos. (3) and (4) concern not the
doctrine but the results of holding to this
doctrine, as valid and important as his last
two points are. In this same chapter, after
discussing six passages in which the Bible
does err, so to speak (e.g., the relative size of
the mustard seed and whether or not the
disciples were to take along staffs on their
missionary journeys), he concludes with four
reasons why inerrancy is not defensible. But
it is confusing, for these four reasons ( [1 ]
Bible does not teach inerrancy, but [2] seems
to point the opposite way; [3] philosophical
arguments do not succeed; and [4] doctrine
is open to various difficulties — pp. 112-113) do
not coincide with the four with which he
began his chapter!

At several points one admires Davis’ atti-
tude, e.g., in his general openness, his willing-
ness to admit that his view of infallibility may
one day be proven fallible, and his confession
that determining what parts of the Bible
concern faith and practice, not to speak of
which are “crucial” to faith and practice, is
a task full of ambiguities (cf. e.g., p. 125). He
sees and admits the weaknesses of his own
position. One point, however, that he seems
not to admit is that nowhere does he explain
what he means by saying “the Bible is the
Word of God.” He freely denies definitions
such as containing the Word and becoming
the Word (pp. 114 & 115), but does not
offer a cogent description of his own under-
standing.

Probably Davis’ most “right on” statement,
in this reviewer’s opinion, comes in his final
chapter when he writes: “I find these pre-
dictions [which inerrantists make in regard
to what will happen if the church does not

i86

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

embrace inerrancy] hard to credit, for I see
God at work in the world constantly creating
new situations and new opportunities for
his people” (p. 131 ). It is this concept of
“newness” — actually of God’s freedom —
which this reviewer sees inerrantists as so
dangerously shutung out; perhaps she is
wrong — perhaps not.

The most — if not really the only — disap-
pointing comments of Davis come in his
final chapter. It should be said, first, that
throughout the book this reader continually
wondered whether from the viewpoint of
evangelicals each time Davis wrote “evan-
gelical Christian” one could actually, in their
eyes, cross out the “evangelical.” One hoped,
however, that Davis did not hold with this
possible perspective. But then he writes:
“How do we decide who is an evangelical
and who is not?”, and proceeds to discuss
passages in I John since it “deals more than
any other [book] with the question of criteria
for who is in the fellowship and who is not”
(p. 132). That Davis does after all see “evan-
gelical” as synonymous with “Christian” (if
one assumes that being “in the fellowship” is
synonymous with being a Christian) is ob-
viously disappointing. Such an attitude on
his part and others leaves one extremely
fearful — fearful, that is, not for the non-
evangelicals (whoever they are), but for the
evangelicals, and thus for a fairly large part
of the present Church.

Regardless of these impressions, all in all
Davis has written a book valuable not only,
it is hoped, in reconciling evangelicals “intra-
murally,” but also helpful for non-evangelicals
in obtaining a clearer idea of the debate
taking place therein. Also the book encour-
ages one to come to terms with one’s own
view towards biblical authority and, if it is
vague and inarticulate, to vow to strengthen
it in a defensible, effective, and articulate
manner.

Elizabeth G. Edwards

Reflections on History and Hope:
Yesterday, Today, and What Next?,
by Roland H. Bainton. Augsburg Pub-
lishing House, Minneapolis, Minn.,
1978. Pp. 141. $3.95 (paper).

This paperback original offers Professor

Roland Bainton of Yale’s reflections on the
meaning of history as seen with the observant
eyes of a distinguished church historian, pon-
dering deeply on the adequacy of various
patterns proposed for the understanding of
human history.

These include, successively, fate and for-
tune as controlling human destiny, the cycli-
cal theory of history, the 18th and 19th cen-
tury notion of progress, the failures of success
and the successes of failure (the most im-
pressive example of the latter is the crucifix-
ion of Christ), and causation (involving a
discussion of the causes of the failure of the
Roman Empire).

Next Dr. Bainton considers theological
insights into the meaning of history. A chap-
ter on God in History deals with both
iniquity and inequity, and is illuminating on
Abraham’s dilemma — to save the boy Isaac at
the cost of disobeying God’s command to
sacrifice him — when discussing Luther’s and
also Kierkegaard’s defense of Abraham’s de-
cision, which Bainton believes was a wrong
one! He sides with Erasmus whose rejoinder
to Luther’s “Let God be God!” was “Let God
be good!” The ensuing chapter deals with the
Jesus of History and textual difficuldes as
well as those created by the nature miracles.
An admirable chapter discusses the historicity
of the Resurrection of Jesus. Professor Bain-
ton recognizes that many have testified to the
impact of the living Christ on their lives and
that “there is absolutely no doubt that the
resurrection has been cardinal in Christian
experience, both as a ground of assurance for
our own immortality and as a source of
strength and comfort through an indwelling
spirit” (p. 77). The following chapter deals
with the Christ of Faith and considers the
adequacy of the christology of gnosticism,
kenoticism, and adoptionism, the three op-
tions considered by the early Christian com-
munity. The Church in History is the theme
of the next chapter, showing how the church
has dominated society, withdrawn from so-
ciety, or collaborated with society.

“Today and What Next” considers the crises
of the present, and “The Historian’s Craft”
which deals with finding the evidence, decid-
ing what is reliable evidence and assessing
its meaning. In this chapter in particular
there is far too much compression.

Generally, however, the work is written
with a wide overview of history both secular

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

and sacred, with telling and vivid anecdotes,
and a deep compassion for humanity, and is
well worth its modest price.

It is marred, however, by a few obvious
errors, probably of proofreading or of mem-
ory. The important battle at which Constan-
tine believed Christ gave him the victory
was at the Milvian bridge (not the Mwlvian
bridge as appears twice on p. 120). It was
the Luddite riots in which workmen smashed
their looms, not ‘Ludlow’ as on p. 102.
Nkrumah was the Ghanian leader, not ‘Nkru-
maj’ (p. 1 14) and, most curious error of
all, Bainton’s former colleague wrote not
Christianity and Culture but Christ and
Culture (p. 136). One great bonus for all
former students of Professor Bainton or of
the admirers of his biographies of Luther
and Erasmus is the excellent speaking like-
ness of him on the front page, a portrait by
Deane Keller now in the Yale University Art
Gallery, evocative of the liveliness and com-
passion of a great Christian humanist.

Horton Davies

Princeton University

Calvinist Preaching and Iconoclasm
in the Netherlands, 1544.-1569, by Phyl-
lis Mack Crew. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1978. Pp. 221. $19.95.

This fine historical study by an Associate
Professor of History at Rutgers University is
a publication in the distinguished new series
of Cambridge Studies in Early Modern His-
tory. While not a book for the general read-
er, though clearly and imaginatively written,
it should be of considerable general interest
to Presbyterian and Reformed ministers in-
trigued by the behavior of their forbears in
unsettled times like our own in the Nether-
lands of the mid-sixteenth century.

Dr. Crew’s main concern is to understand
the causes of the much discussed events of
the “Troubles” of the year 1566, when Prot-
estant ministers and lay preachers gathered
vast crowds who in various southern cities
and towns engaged in iconoclasm. Oddly and
happily enough, this image-breaking was not
accompanied with cruelty to Catholic priests,
such as occurred at roughly the same time in
France.

187

Hitherto the “Troubles” have been ac-
counted for as a purely social protest on the
part of the disinherited, or as a rehearsal for
the later Dutch Revolt on the part of Calvinist
ministers. Professor Crew shows convincingly
that each hypothesis fits only a selection of
the facts. Her own view, greatly simplified,
is that the moderateness of the iconoclasm is
explicable in terms of the general desire for
both social and religious authority, and
through the political ambiguity of the min-
isters and hedge preachers, and the varying
backgrounds of the ministers who were in
exile. Such restraint would be overcome only
when King Philip’s and the Duke of Alva’s
intentions were only too vindictively clear,
and persecution would fuse both Reformed
ministers and people to the flashpoint of
Revolt.

This is a superb study of materials in
Dutch, Flemish, French and English sources
and interpretations, with narrative vividness,
and a high independence of judgment.

Horton Davies

The Priest in Community : Exploring
the Roots of Ministry, by Urban T.
Holmes, III. The Seabury Press, New
York, N.Y., 1978. Pp. 193. $9.95.

Teaming Through Liturgy, by Gwen
Kennedy Neville and John H. Wester-
hofT, III. The Seabury Press, New York,
N.Y., 1978. Pp. 189. $9.95.

These two books mark exciting advances
in the discipline of Christian Education.
While still insisting on the importance of doc-
trine and ethics in the intellectual, active
mode, they wish to complement this with the
recognition of the importance of sacred nar-
ratives, symbols, and ritual, which represent
a passive mode of apprehension. For Pro-
fessor Westerhoff this requires a marriage of
cathechesis and of liturgy, each reinforcing
the other. His book, in which the symbolic
and ritualistic mode’s significance is prepared
for by a fascinating study made by Professor
Gwen Kennedy Neville of folk liturgies in
the American South (including an intriguing
analysis of the Presbyterian Montreat com-
munity in the summer) affirms the important
insights of anthropology for understanding

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

1 88

the role of religion. In his view — and few
will quarrel with him — one has only to con-
trast the initiation rite into an African tribe
going through disorientation, and liminality
to reorientation — to see how trivial and stereo-
typed confirmation or admission to church
membership has become in most Christian
Communions today. He insists, rightly, that
Christian ritual is the most powerful factor
integrating the Christian community and
transmitting its values from generation to
generation. It is the insights of cultural an-
thropology and of the history of religions,
as well as those of psychology, which are
making Christian Education so fascinating
a field of study and practice.

Dean Urban T. Holmes has written more
than an interesting volume: it is provocative
of thought, revisionist in no superficial way,
and highly relevant. Apart from his extraor-
dinary humanness (a gift which only obtrudes
when he tells us twice in the same book that
he is six feet six inches high), his humor, and
his honesty, he deploys skilled insights from
analytical and historical psychology (Jung to
Julian Jaynes), primitive anthropology and
cultural anthropology, physical sciences, and,
most especially, the history of philosophy. His
anecdotes and citations are admirably fresh
grist for the preacher’s mill.

Both books will illuminate the priest’s and
minister’s calling, reassure him (or her) of
its worthwhileness, suggest developments of
which he may be only partially aware, and
temptations which must be overcome to main-
tain authenticity as God’s representative in
creating order out of the disorder of our
life, and entering into the demonic experi-
ences of others as an angel, and in our secu-
lar and overrationalized world acting as a
“mystagogue” — to use Holmes’s favorite word
— for the man or woman of God in authority.

There are spots on the sun. I noticed Laco
daire” twice misspelled on p. 140 of The Priest
in the Community, while Learning through
Liturgy has a plural subject and singular verb
on p. 21, and “principle” instead of “princi-
pal” on p. 151, and a rather reluctant
“emerged” instead of “immersed” in baptism
on p. 156.

Horton Davies

Magnolia Christi Americana : Boo\s
l and II, by Cotton Mather, ed. by Ken-

neth B. Murdock (with the assistance
of Elizabeth W. Miller). Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1977. Pp. 500. $25.00.

Cotton Mather is, as Edmund S. Morgan
recently called him, “the Puritan you love to
hate.” A controversial figure from his own
day to the present, Mather has earned brick-
bats for his role in the infamous Salem
witchcraft trials, his egotism, his attempts to
reinterpret Puritan theology in a New Eng-
land undergoing significant social, political,
and religious change. And yet, partially be-
cause of his incredibly prolific and prolix pen
and partially because of his tremendous intel-
lect, he simply cannot be ignored; historians
still flock to him and his writings in some-
what the same fashion that the American
press remains fascinated with Richard Nixon
— although there are obvious limits to the
comparison.

Mather was, quite simply, a genius. He was
the grandson of two of the founders of
Massachusetts Bay, Richard Mather and John
Cotton, and the son of Increase Mather. He
began his studies at the Boston Latin School,
and by. the time he was twelve, he could
speak Latin, “had composed many Latin ex-
ercises, both in prose and verse,” and “con-
versed with Cato, Corderius, Terence, Tully,
Ovid, and Virgil." The latter’s Aeneid pro-
vided him with the cadences for the famous
opening section of the Magnolia-. “I WRITE
the Wonders of the CHRISTIAN RELI-
GION, flying from the Depravations of
Europe, to the American Strand." By the
age of twelve, he had also mastered Greek
and worked through much of the New
Testament and began his study of Hebrew,
which he polished at Harvard, along with
his study of “ Logic and Physic ,” “the Use of
the Globes ,” arithmetic (“as far as was ordi-
nary”), and “in a Word, describing the
Circle of all the Academical Studies.” He
was graduated by Harvard in 1678, when he
was sixteen, the youngest student who had
received the A.B. from Harvard, and took
a master’s degree in 1681.

Mather continued to develop this extraordi-
nary learning, and his literary corpus is enor-
mous. His most extensive work — a commen-
tary on every verse of every book of the
Bible — remains, perhaps mercifully, unpub-
lished, but a bibliography of his writings

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

contains more than 400 titles. The Magnolia ,
especially Books I and II, has attracted the
greatest historical interest, and Sacvan Ber-
kovitch recently used Mather’s biography of
John Winthrop, “Nehemias Americanus,” as
the basis for his penetrating reinterpretation
of Puritanism, The Puritan Origins of the
American Self. Book I consists of a survey of
the early history of the New England colo-
nies, and Book II is a series of biographical
sketches of the lives of the governors of the
colonies. Published as it was in 1702, the
Magnolia was a work of historical apologetics
— an attempt to defend the New England
experiment in creating a holy commonwealth
before its detractors in Britain but also to
remind a new generation of New England-
ers of the historical legacy which they had
to sustain and live up to. In many respects,
the First Great Awakening — with its promise
of sudden conversion and its reorientation
toward the future — was a response to the
awful burden of history which Mather and
others had placed upon a New England still
on its errand in the wilderness.

This new edition of Books I and II of the
Magnolia makes the text available with su-
perb introductions. There are two gracefully-
written essays by Murdock, one on Mather’s
career and another on the writing and sub-
sequent evaluation of the Magnolia ; in addi-
tion, George H. Williams has provided an
excellent analysis of the motif of the wilder-
ness that so profoundly shaped Puritan con-
sciousness and subsequent American religious
and social history. The scholarly apparatus
is beyond cavil. Mather’s Magnolia is filled
with puns, allusions, parodies, and references
to other works, and these sources are iden-
tified in the notes, a prodigious job of his-
torical research and detective work. It is little
wonder that one contemporary observed of
Mather, “His Library is very large and nu-
merous; but, had his Books been fewer when
he wrote his ‘History,’ it would have pleased
us better.” Murdock and Elizabeth Miller
have done what Mather himself did not do,
and this volume stands as a model of his-
torical editing par excellence.

John M. Mulder

Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform:
An Essay on Religion and Social
Change in America, i 6 oy-igyy, by Wil-

189

liam G. McLoughlin. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 111 ., 1978. Pp.
239. $12.50.

This volume represents another contribu-
tion to the Chicago History of American
Religion, a series edited by Martin E. Marty,
and the author comes to his subject after
extensive work on American evangelicalism,
including studies of Isaac Backus and the
New England Baptists, a survey of nineteenth
and twentieth century revivalism and biog-
raphies of two of revivalism’s most notable
practitioners — Billy Sunday and Billy Gra-
ham. The book is, in many respects, a major
work, despite the author’s disclaimer of it as
“an essay” and its relatively brief length. In
its scope, it is the most far-reaching attempt
to analyze the phenomenon of religious
awakenings in American history; in its in-
terdisciplinary approach, it breaks new
ground and sets the awakenings at the heart
of American culture, rather than viewing
them as fringe movements that are inter-
esting only in terms of their impact on
churches or because of some of their more
bizarre manifestations.

The key to understanding McLoughlin’s
thesis lies in his utilization of anthropological
and sociological methodologies, preeminent-
ly the work of Anthony F. C. Wallace. Using
Wallace’s concept of “revitalization move-
ments,” McLoughlin argues that American
culture has witnessed five “awakenings,”
which he defines as periods of “fundamental
social and intellectual reorientation of the
American belief-value system, behavior pat-
terns, and institutional structure.” These
periods of revitalization have interacted with
“a constant culture core of rather broadly
stated beliefs” (p. 10), redefining and rejuve-
nating personal and social identity at times
of severe cultural strain. Revivals represent
the impact of revitalization on individuals,
but awakenings are social and cultural in
their impact and scope. In short, the history
of awakenings is not merely the history of
religious and theological change but basic
alterations in the structure and self-under-
standing of American culture.

The common core of cultural values which
serves as the touchstone for awakenings is
seen by McLoughlin as in large measure a
product of Puritanism and the American
colonial experience. The first of the awaken-

190

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

ings was the early years of Puritan settle-
ment itself, but McLoughlin resorts to tradi-
tional terminology and periodization in
analyzing the First and Second Great Awaken-
ings. The final two awakenings will come as
the greatest surprise to historians; McLough-
lin dates them from 1890-1920 and “1960-
i99o(?).” These last two chapters will un-
doubtedly prompt the strongest dissent and
debate. I find his argument of revitalization
compelling and convincing for the “Great
Awakenings,” but in the latter two, he is
forced into describing cultural change almost
exclusively, and the actual religious com-
ponent of this change is markedly reduced.
It is less than clear why the heyday of
Dwight L. Moody should be subordinated
to the relatively brief and meteoric career of
Billy Sunday; it might also be argued that if
cultural change is the key factor, then ear-
lier periods might warrant the term “awaken-
ing,” e.g., 1690-1730 or 1850-1880. Despite the
many defects of McLoughlin’s last chapter
on the contemporary awakening, it does pro-
vide a perspective on American religious life
and culture different than that of Sydney
Ahlstrom, who emphasizes “declension” and
cultural disintegration in current religious
developments.

One of the virtues of McLoughlin’s treat-
ment is that his sociological approach does
not mean a neglect of religious ideas, which
are seen as central to the transformations
of American society. An irritating and inex-
cusable defect of the book is the absence of
footnotes in lieu of a bibliographical essay.
As a whole, McLoughlin’s work will serve
as the basis for new work in American so-
cial and religious history; if his thesis is ac-
cepted, it will mean that no understanding of
American society will be complete without a
full acknowledgment of the crucial changes
represented and embodied in the awakenings.

John M. Mulder

Religion in the Old South , by Donald
G. Mathews. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, 111 ., 1977. Pp. 274. $10.95.

For far more than a century, it has been
obvious to Southerners and non-Southerners
alike that there was something different,
something unique about the religiosity that
was spawned and nurtured south of the

Mason-Dixon line and carried into the twen-
tieth century and into the White House dur-
ing the 1970s. The unique qualities of this
religion have been hinted at, alluded to, and
sometimes described, but in every case they
seem to have eluded even the most percep-
tive observers. Southern religion remained
in definition roughly comparable to one
judge’s formulation of pornography: he

couldn’t tell you what it was, but he knew
it when he saw it.

Donald Mathews, Professor of History at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, has attempted in this brilliant book a
historical survey and a thematic interpreta-
tion of Southern religion and culture, and
the result is one that will provide new in-
sight and perspective on an enduring religious
tradition in American society. His earlier
work focused on Methodism and slavery and
on American abolitionists, as well as the
history of the South, and it is clear that this
volume represents the fruit of that earlier
research and a vivid moral vision. C. Vann
Woodward suggested many years ago that the
South could serve as an archetype for the
struggles of the American conscience, and
Mathews’ analysis confirms that insight. Read
in the late 1970s, his book will reinforce and
confirm the anguish which racism, sexism,
and class have brought to the American
churches and the society.

Religion in the Old South is actually an
analysis of Southern evangelicalism. As such,
it spends relatively little space on the seven-
teenth century and the weak and ineffectual
role of Anglicanism; further, it focuses pri-
marily on the growth of evangelical Protes-
tantism from the mid-eighteenth century
through the heightened sectional antagonisms
of the mid-nineteenth century. Baptists and
Methodists provide the core of the story, al-
though Mathews’ treatment is not denomina-
tional but attempts to analyze the underlying
evangelical ethos of the South.

Mathews sees in early evangelicalism a
movement with profund implications for
transforming the social order. It provided
lower- and middle-class whites with a clear
interpretation of life and firm moral stand-
ards, but Mathews also emphasizes the way
in which it offered a sense of community
and identity for people who found them-
selves at the fringes of Southern society and
alienated from it. Like H. Richard Niebuhr
before him, Mathews sees the gradual ascent

THE P RINCET ON SEMINARY BULLETIN

of evangelicals into the middle and upper
classes as a gradual compromising and weak-
ening of the moral fervor that lay deep in
the evangelical impulse. But ironically, as the
white evangelicals “matured,” they also
turned to the black slaves among them in
missionary activity, and it was these Afro-
American Christians who received, adapted,
and ultimately transformed evangelicalism
into an eloquent statement of God’s triumph
over suffering, evil, and even death itself.

Two aspects of Mathews’ book merit special
attention. First, he describes the develop-
ment of an evangelical conception of wom-
an’s “sphere,” similar to the notion prom-
ulgated by Northern clerics, but in the
South, the “lady” took on additional impor-
tance for undergirding the moral order of
slave society. In the mother was lodged the
primary responsibility for training in moral-
ity and religion within the home, which
simultaneously restricted women but also
provided a relatively autonomous sphere in
which they could function. Like the slaves,
they were subordinate to the control and
domination of white men, but evangelical
women sometimes grasped the connection
between the equality they were offered in
Christ and the possibility of challenging their
status and the institution of slavery. The
ideology of the slave system was based on
the suppression of both blacks and women;
the opposition to slavery was occasionally
found in a recognition of their common
lot. Too often, however, the political realities
of the South and the power of the slave
regime kept that potential alliance from
being realized.

Second, Mathews strongly emphasizes a
theme which has become the central finding
of new research into religion and the Afro-
American experience in slavery. In spite of
considerable ambivalence and sometimes hos-
tility toward evangelizing the slaves, and
despite the extensive Christianization of the
slave population, blacks did not appropriate
a Euro-American Protestantism without mak-
ing significant alterations in it. Aspects of
African religions and culture interacted with
Christianity to form Afro-American Chris-
tianity — highly evangelical at its core but
demonstrably different from its white counter-
part. The most significant difference, Math-
ews argues, was the black conception of God
as an apocalyptic God, intervening in history
to judge the righteous and the evil, over-

191

turning the temporal order, and justifying
the elect people. At times this could lead to
the bloody insurrection of Nat Turner, who
saw himself as a prophet appointed by God
to avenge evil, but more often it gave a sense
of confidence and assurance that amidst all
depravation, God would prevail. The most
provocative and eloquent description of this
characteristic of black Christianity comes
in Mathews’ analysis of the famous sermon,
“The Sun do Move,” by the black preacher,
John Jasper. As whites thrilled to the ca-
dences of Jasper’s preaching and saw in it a
repudiation of modern science, blacks saw
something quite different, says Mathews. At
the heart of Jasper’s vision was a God who
would disrupt even the laws of nature to save
a people in bondage and distress.

There are portions of this book that do not
read easily, and there are times when one
wishes for more evidence for the bold gen-
eralizations and sweeping changes the author
makes and describes. Yet it is a deeply mov-
ing and inspiring book, a summons to face
the legacy of the past and a challenge to re-
shape the future.

John M. Mulder

The Open Secret: Sketches for a Mis-
sionary Theology, by Lesslie Newbigin.
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Com-
pany, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1978. Pp.
214. $4.95.

Scorned and lauded, missionary activity
has been viewed as arising from a multitude
of mixed motives. The existence of at least
four such reasons for mission have been
observed by Walter Freytag (the “pietist,”
“ecclesiastical” or “churchly,” “humanist”
and “apocalyptic”) but, of course, there are
others. They probably vary to the extent that
there are different views of the Kingdom of
God. A proper understanding of Christian
mission is a question which elicits heated
debate as much today as, for example, in the
days of the first Gentile mission. Missiologist
Lesslie Newbigin, a founder of the Church of
South India and for several years Director
of the Division of World Mission and Evan-
gelism of the World Council of Churches,
outlines in this book what he refers to as
the “open secret” of missionary activity:
“proclaiming the Kingdom of the Father,

192

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

sharing the life of the Son and bearing the
witness of the Spirit.”

While this does not strike one as particu-
larly novel at first, Newbigin uses this trini-
tarian motif for mission in a helpful struc-
tural way. Following the Willingen (West
Germany) world missionary conference in
1952, with its emphasis upon the missio Dei
(that the source of mission is in the triune
God), he first sketched out his thesis in a
pamphlet entitled, “Trinitarian Faith for To-
day’s Mission.” Newbigin has further de-
veloped this material in lectures delivered at
Princeton Theological Seminary in the sum-
mer of 1977 and succeeds in presenting here
a brief, yet highly informative, readable in-
troduction to this controversial topic. This
is not a work of academic scholarship yet
the insights which are developed in terms of
“missionary principles and practice” (to use
a definition of missiology coined by Robert
Speer) are as deep as Newbigin’s service to
the church has been long. From the Second
Vatican Council to the pronouncements of
numerous Protestant theologians there has
come in recent years a reaffirmation of the
missionary character of the church, of the
task that this implies, and a renewed con-
fession of a pilgrim people for new openness
toward the world to which the church is
sent. The “grammer” for such a multifarious
task is provided by and integrated in the
triune God according to Newbigin.

Mission has three aspects. It is the proc-
lamation of the Kingdom of the Father with
a mandate that extends as wide as universal
history. Here mission, as faith in action, is
molded by tribulation and faithful witness
under the sovereignty of God. God’s hidden
program became public in Jesus, however,
who is the face of God’s mission. Newbigin
argues that to be faithful to the facts of
Jesus’ person and work, the first generation
of disciples had to alter Jesus’ own preaching
of the Kingdom to a proclamation about
Jesus. For the “Kingdom, or kingship, of
God was no longer a distant hope or a face-
less concept. It now had a name and a
face. . . .” For Newbigin, the church can
hold and live by this faith because Jesus was
“designated Son of God in power . . .” (Rom.
1:4). This proclamation is not the property of
the church but of the Spirit of God. ‘Mis-
sion is not just church extension. It is some-
thing more costly and revolutionary.” It is

something done by the Spirit who, as the
witness, changes both church and world.

As the church stands on the threshold of
the third millennium after Christ’s birth, in
the midst of violent changes and shifts in the
world situation, penetrating theological ques-
tions need to be dealt with. For example,
what really is the definition of salvation?
Why practice religion at all? Are we dealing
with a merely enhanced form of the ego, of
subjectivity, as was confidently asserted as the
pious nineteenth-century wore on? Why
should religion be seen as a proper area of
concern? Newbigin sketches an answer here
which takes us to the heart of the christo-
logical debates. For the question of authority
is one that lay at the center of Jesus’ min-
istry. With a dependence upon the work of
Oscar Cullmann and Joachim Jeremias, we are
presented with one who suffered for the sins
of the world, who did not come to found a
religion so much as to be the light, life and
Lord. A strong Augustinian interpretation
is applied which points us again in the direc-
tion of the Trinity as the only satisfying an-
swer to the question posed by the person of
Jesus. This answer is presented through
Michael Polanyi’s post-critical philosophy but
it is obviously an area which requires a great
deal of continued reflection as we face the
implications of Nicene theology today.

The intriguing feature of Newbigin’s par-
adigm is that it offers so much room for an
interplay of form and freedom in missiologi-
cal thought. This is particularly important
with regard to what Arthur Johnston has
recently called “the battle for world evan-
gelism.” With lines being drawn between
Lausanne (1974) and Bankok (1977), New-
bigin offers a structure which has the po-
tential of combining both a concern for the
justice of God in the world on a supracon-
gregational level with that of repentance at
the congregational level. With all of his talk
about a trinitarian rather than simply chris-
tocentric missiology, what one does look for,
but not always find, is a fuller theological
foundation for mission which reaches be-
yond an appeal to the person and work of
Jesus — as vital as that may be. A helpful
sketch for this can be seen in the recent work
of Johannes Verkuyl who begins to lay the
biblical foundation for mission in the Old
Testament. Following the work of Johan
H. Bavinck, J. Blauw, and Hans Werner
Gensichen, Verkuyl attempts to look at the

i93

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

structure of the biblical message in the Old
Testament, pointing to four motifs: that of a
universal horizon, God’s work of rescue and
liberation, election as a call to service, and
Yahweh’s opposition to the powers set against
his liberating and gracious authority.

Not only does one come away from New-
bigin’s “sketch for a missionary theology”
wishing for more in the area of founda-
tional work but the usefulness of his trini-
tarian thesis for breaking out of present mis-
siological impasses could be further exploited.
For example, a too narrowly christocentric
mission leads to a focus upon Jesus as an
ideal type or model to be followed (along the
lines of nineteenth-century Unitarian mis-
sions) on the one hand, or, on the other,
to a pietistic monism of exclusively other-
worldly concern (along the lines of funda-
mentalist mysticism). With a trinitarian em-
phasis in mission one is able to more fully
keep in balance many facets of Christian
faith with a view toward the entire scope of
God’s work in the world.

All that has been said thus far about New-
bigin’s threefold model is put to fruitful theo-
logical use as he presents, in briefly and
clearly articulated terms, four of the chief
theoretical and practical problems in current
missiological discussion: (i) the question of
the gospel in history; (2) the efficacy of lib-
eration theology; (3) the debate over the
(Fuller) “Church Growth” movement; and
(4) the question of the encounter between
the gospel and other living religious tradi-
tions. In this fourth area the strength of
Newbigin’s trinitarian paradigm is clearly
seen. It provides him with what he calls “the
grammer of dialogue.” As all share in the
common nature of the Father, we can be
open to truth wherever it may be found. As
particular members of Christ’s body, we par-
ticipate with others in work and dialogue
out of a deep sense of commitment, standing
vulnerable and exposed, seeking truth in
humility but not fearful of sharing our
knowledge of it. Finally, this is done in full
reliance upon the Holy Spirit who is the
source of change for ourselves and others.

In a day when all of our motives are being
“sifted like wheat,” the burden of missiology
brings the question to the church: does her
life conform to his calling to be like the “salt
of the earth” and “the light of the world?”
In W. A. Visser ’t Hooft’s words, this is the
“time of testing” for Christian missions —

but not only for missions. For as both Karl
Barth and Emil Brunner have said, if the
church fails in her missionary obligation she
is no longer the church. Like Christ, the
church has been sent into the world not for
her own welfare but for the world’s. New-
bigin’s book will serve as a balanced and
helpful guide through many of the current
missiological issues. (For a more detailed
study of this topic, however, one will have
to go beyond this to something like the re-
cently translated study by Johannes Verkuyl,
Contemporary Missiology , translated by Dale
Cooper, published by Eerdmans, 1978.) In
our day of tremendous religious pluralism
and interest, The Open Secret is a must for
any pastor’s library and would serve as a
useful basis for an adult church school class
concerned with modern Christian missions.

Rodney L. Petersen

American Apocalypse: Yankee Prot-
estants and the Civil War, 1860-1869,
by James H. Moorhead. Yale University
Press, New Haven, Conn., 1978. Pp. xiv
+ 278. $17.50.

There was more at stake in the American
Civil War than the maintenance of the polit-
ical union. Lincoln described America as the
world’s “last best hope.” It was the redeemer
nation anointed by God to show the world
that men could live together harmoniously
in a republican society. That Lincoln, no
churchgoer, interpreted American history in
millennial terms suggests how much mille-
narianism pervaded the northern conscious-
ness and defined the meaning of the Ameri-
can Civil War.

The war galvanized the northern Protes-
tant establishment’s commitment to the idea
of America as a redeemer nation. For north-
ern Protestants, who dominated the Ameri-
can “mind,” the war was an apocalyptic
struggle. The discipline of the war promised
to cleanse the nation of its excessive mate-
rialism and divisive individualism. The war
bred consensus on previously contested issues
such as abolition, and it imparted to all social
reform and political ideology a stronger evan-
gelical tone. The expected victory of Chris-
tian armies, marching to the “glory of the
coming of the Lord,” promised to cast out the
evil demons of slavery, states’ rights, and self-

194

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

ishness. The discipline of the war would
forge internal social cohesion and shared
loyalty to northern Protestant values of sobrie-
ty, industry, probity, and benevolence. The
war would prepare the nation for the mil-
lennium.

It did not work out that way. The corrup-
tion of the Gilded Age and the pusillanimous
efforts to reconstruct the South disillusioned
the “true believers.” The South’s tenacious
resistance to northern Protestant values dem-
onstrated that the war had not been the
Armageddon of the republic. New problems
of urbanization, industrialization, immigra-
tion, and scientific theories which challenged
traditional Protestant beliefs all reemerged
with greater force after the war to confound
and undermine the millennial promise. Most
important, the millennial expectations of
northern Protestants left them unprepared
to deal with the ambiguities and paradoxes
of a modernizing America. They prayed for
total victory and apprehended total defeat.
There was no middle ground. As Moorhead
concludes, they could only receive disappoint-
ment.

Moorhead has written a brilliant book. He
synthesizes an enormous literature on Amer-
ica’s sense of providential destiny and under-
stands the ambivalence among Protestants
about their God and country. He recognizes
that the belief in America as the new Israel
led to divergent reactions among Protestants
when they addressed specific social problems.
Some became radical reformers; others be-
came conservatives willing to leave temporal
affairs to God alone. The war did not resolve
these differences so much as it disguised
them. More important, Moorhead reveals the
danger of an idealistic conception of Ameri-
can destiny. By presenting the Civil War, or
indeed any war, as a decisive religious test,
Protestants made armies and navies, govern-
ment, the arbiters of God’s people and
institutions. They relinquished to secular au-
thorities their claims to higher law and dis-
sent. They also encouraged a bellicose na-
tionalism in which any aggressive act could
be justified as extending Christ’s kingdom.
Such rhetoric echoed during the Spanish-
American War, World War I, and in more
recent struggles. In that sense, Moorhead
has written a book of warning as much as
a first-rate study of the northern Protestant
mind and millenarianism in mid-nineteenth-

century America. All of us will profit by read-
ing and pondering this insightful book.

Randall M. Miller

Saint Joseph’s College
Philadelphia, Pa.

The Missionary Enterprise in China
and America , ed. by John K. Fairbank.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1974. Pp. 446. $16.50.

This symposium is welcome in a time when
the Peoples’ Republic of China is seeking to
relate to the outside world and when doors
are being opened for a better understanding
of recent developments in Chinese life and
culture. It is also welcome because it seeks to
examine the origin, development, effect and
the success and/or failure of Protestant mis-
sions in China, to examine and evaluate the
relation of missions and missionaries to
Chinese culture, to Sino-American political
relations, to Chinese nationalism, and to
Chinese Communism. It also sheds light on
the image of China which missions and mis-
sionaries portrayed to their American sup-
porters. This book also recognizes a fact that
has been ignored by historians, namely that
historians have passed by the missionary as
“the invisible man of American history.”
After all, for more than a century mission-
aries were the main contact points between
the Chinese and the American peoples.

After an introductory chapter by Editor
John K. Fairbank, on “the many faces of
Protestant missions in China and the United
States,” twelve collaborators provide schol-
arly chapters on a variety of subjects. Their
studies are divided into three parts: Protes-
tant Missions in American Expansion; Chris-
tianity and the Transformation of China;
Chrisdan Mission Images and American
Politics.

While Americans and Chinese were in-
volved in each other’s histories since 1784.
people-to-people contact occurred during
about one century, mostly under the unequal
treaty system from the 1840s to the 1940s.
The first Protestant missionaries were part
of the Anglo-American community at Can-
ton in 1830, but by the 1860s after wars with
Britain and the treaties which opened up
China’s main treaty ports, pioneer mission-
aries began to enter the interior. By 1920,

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

195

some 5,000 missionaries were scattered across
China, including wives who often served as
teachers or nurses. Include the British and
European missionaries, and there was an im-
pressive establishment of churches, hospitals,
schools, colleges, and other institutions in
China. These were inherited by the Peoples’
Republic of China in 1949. “By that time,”
says the editor, “it became evident that few
Chinese were likely to become Christians
and that the missionaries’ long-continued ef-
fort, if measured in numbers of converts, had
failed.”

An investigation of this historical process
and the present situation is the objective of
this book. The relation of the Gospel to
Chinese language and culture is discussed,
as are many interesting aspects of the mis-
sionary enterprise in China: the theology of
missions, the relation of missions to the mili-
tary and political “opening up” of China,
the attitude and stance of Protestant missions,
missionaries and Chinese Christians towards
the nationalistic and the Communistic rev-
olutions.

It is interesting to note that the Chinese
Communist revolution has stressed the spread
of literacy to everyone, the publication of
journals and pamphlets in the vernacular,
the education and equality of women, the
abolition of child-marriage, the importance
of public duty over family and filial obedi-
ence, the increase of agricultural production,
public health clinics, discussion groups, the
acquisition of western knowledge and tech-
nology to improve life. The editor affirms
that “Missionaries in the nineteenth century
pioneered in all of these activities.” Yet, Com-
munists today resent any mention of this past
record of the missionaries.

Indeed, missionaries especially in educa-
tional centers and colleges were “spiritual re-
formers” whose work involved them in every
aspect of social reform; thereby they con-
tributed to the revolutionary changes in
China. And they also contributed to the
American public response to them. Their im-
pact upon American policy, however, is not
too clear. There is little indication that the
government in Washington listened to the
missionaries in determining foreign policy
towards China.

There is much in this volume concerning
the relation of missions in China to American
expansion and imperialism. It also raises the
question as to whether one culture can pene-

trate another, and if one religious tradition
is able to penetrate another. Indeed, penetra-
tion did take place but often not in the
manner in which the missionaries intended.

As for imperialism Arthur Schlesinger
writes that Christian missions were a po-
liter,” and perhaps, therefore, a more “insidi-
ous” kind of imperialism. Yet, he is inclined
to be more charitable in his assessment of
missionary imperialism, calling it a “cultural
imperialism,” especially in medical and edu-
cational missions. This somewhat “superior”
method is expressed in the way Americans
have been active in nation building in Japan,
Korea, and to some extent in Vietnam.

The editor calls attention to the enormous
opportunities that await scholars in pursuing
further studies in this area. While the British
have long been at work on their records
dealing with their relations to China, “the
exploratory surveys and case studies in this
volume suggest the dimensions of the mis-
sionary contact and its repercussions, as yet
largely unexplored, in China and America.”

This volume is a mosaic or series of case
studies on the missionary enterprise in China
and America by competent and objective
Sino-American scholars with two or three
exceptions. Therefore, it lacks the warmth
and the spirit that is usually associated with
missionary histories written by participants
in the enterprise. Yet, it is a pioneer study
by historians who are beginning to take
seriously the part of missions and mission-
aries in the relation of China to America.
Further, it is a study that will be helpful in
the relation not only of Protestant missions
and missionaries to Chinese and other cul-
tures today, but of Christian missions and
missionaries to other religions and the cul-
tures to which they are integrally related.
And it certainly will be a critical guide to
any proposals by Christians anywhere in their
approach to the Peoples’ Republic of China.

Elmer G. Homrighausen

Architect of Unity: A Biography of
Samuel McCrea Cavert , by William J.
Schmidt. Friendship Press, New York,
N.Y., 1978. Pp. 338. $9.95 (paper), $14.95
(cloth).

The author of this fascinating and com-
prehensive biography of Samuel McCrea

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

196

Cavert brings to his task a long study of and
association with his subject. He had access
to sources in the libraries of the National
and World Councils of Churches, and in the
private papers and letters of the Cavert fam-
ily. Close associates of Cavert, among them
Mrs. Cavert. Robert T. Handy, R. H. Edwin
Espey, Roswell Barnes, have provided him
with many personal details. Yet, the author
admits, “He (Cavert) became, indeed, my
chief mentor in things ecumenical.”

As one who knew “Sam,” worked with
him, and who has been involved in the ecu-
menical movement, the reading of this book
by the reviewer has been a refresher course
recalling and illuminating many first-hand
experiences of past years.

We have in this volume the lively story of
a prominent leader of American and World
Protestantism covering half a century. Al-
ways his life and activity are seen within
the context of the history of American and
European Protestantism, through two world
wars, their ramifications, and their conse-
quences. For about three decades Samuel
McCrea Cavert was the executive of the
Federal Council of Churches, then of its
successor the National Council of Churches.
During that time he was also actively en-
gaged in the development of the ecumenical
movement and the shaping of the World
Council of Churches (he was largely instru-
mental in giving it that name). After serving
the National Council of Churches, he was
named Executive Secretary of the New York
office of the World Council of Churches.

The McCreas and the Caverts of Charlton,
New York, were rooted in Scotch-Irish Pres-
byterian piety and doctrine. Though modi-
fied into an “evangelical liberalism” through
the years, this heritage was the cohesive cen-
ter of Sam’s entire lifetime. Graduated from
Union College, summa cum laude, where he
was president of the YMCA, he earned an
M.A. in Philosophy from Columbia Univer-
sity, the B.D. from Union Seminary in New
York, was ordained, assisted William Adams
Brown at Union Seminary for a year, traveled
on a Fellowship to India and the Far East,
enrolled in the Graduate School at Harvard,
enlisted as a Chaplain in the U.S. Army,
started work on the War-Time Commission
of the Churches and became Secretary of
the Committee on the War and the Religious
Outlook of the Federal Council of Churches.
He married Ruth Miller in 1918 and suffered

her tragic death after the birth of their daugh-
ter, Mary. Then his conciliar work in the
Federal, National, and World Councils of
Churches began.

In 1920 he became the Associate Secretary
of the Federal Council of Churches; in 1921
he became the General Secretary of the Fed-
eral Council. His marriage to Ruth Twila
Lytton in 1927 was an interesting and fortu-
nate episode in Sam’s pilgrimage; it was
blessed with great benefits to both parties over
many years. From then onward Sam was
busily engaged in travels, visits, consultations,
and meetings before and after the War relat-
ing to the formation of the World Council
of Churches, its first (Amsterdam), second
(Evanston), third (New Delhi), and fourth
(Uppsala) Assemblies. He attended the Third
Session of Vatican Council II, and the Church
and Society Conference in Geneva, 1966.

Schmidt illuminates many facets of Sam’s
life and work and relates them to personali-
ties, events, and critical issues. Sam was
early torn between the quiet academic life
and the tensions and confidence of an execu-
tive career. Schmidt writes honestly about
the painful but creative crises into which Sam
was thrust: the bitter criticisms of the Fed-
eral Council, the charge of Communism
against the Council, the Flynn controversy,
and the “denominational barrage.” Later, he
was caught in the tensions between the Euro-
pean and American types of Christianity.

Through all his career, Sam consistently
believed that Christianity offered (1) per-
sonal salvation, (2) social justice, and (3)
Christian unity. Through his mediation he
brought Dr. and Mrs. Martin Niemoller to
the United States; through his persuasion
Karl Barth wrote his provocative letter to
the American Christians. He believed that
isolated and independent divisions among
Christians could be overcome through co-
operation, consultation, and the cultivation
of a spirit of unity. There were men more
visible in their leadership during his life-
time, such as Reinhold Niebuhr, Bishop
Oxnam, and Fosdick, but Cavert by his quiet,
winsome, reasonable approach, through ad-
dresses, articles and conferences played a
more lasting and effective role in the con-
ciliar movement. One can learn from him
how a gentle, courteous, friendly man of
integrity, wisdom, and character can live and
work and achieve in the midst of exasperat-
ing pressures.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

197

Not only is this volume an exciting biog-
raphy of Cavert, “architect of unity,” but it
is a valuable account of the story of the
ecumenical reality in this century and the
persons, events, crises, and problems which
it involved. That reality cries out today for
leaders with similar insight, conviction, dis-
cernment, zeal, and temperament.

Elmer G. Hormighausen

A Concise History of the Christian
World Mission: A Panoramic View of
Missions from Pentecost to the Present,
by J. Herbert Kane. Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 1978. Pp. 210.
$4.95 (paper).

The author believes that all committed
Christians should have a working knowledge
of the Christian world mission. And because
books on the subject are too long, too heavy,
and too detailed for popular use, a shorter
and more usable book should be written. The
result is the present volume.

Kane’s book is divided into two parts:
Part I, Missions Through the Ages from
Pentecost to William Carey; and Part II,
Around the World. Part Two includes the
expansion and development of Protestant
missions in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, missions in the Muslim world, in
Asia, Africa, Latin America, and in Europe,
concluding with two chapters of missions in
retrospect and prospect.

The book includes facts and figures on
Christianity in various parts of the world, a
list of significant dates in mission history and
a comprehensive index. Dr. J. Herbert Kane
has served as a missionary to China, has
written extensively on missions, and now
teaches World Mission and Evangelism at
the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

The story of missionary activity and ex-
pansion from 30 to 1850 A.D. is told in an
interesting and succinct way. The author
manages to include in this volume a mass of
pertinent information, significant evaluations
of missions, and critical problems which now
confront missions. He supplies the reader
with the difficulties and the problems of mis-
sions today in the Muslim world and in
Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe.
He writes about the sturdy qualities of early
missionaries and the excruciating problems

which they encountered. He faces up to the
new problems of missions: retrenchment and
the reduction of missionaries from 3,160 in
1971 to 3,045 in 1976; independent mission
churches; nationalism; decreased seminary
candidates; loss of motivation and funds;
and Communism.

He finds encouragement in the new inter-
est in missions, short term programs, world
missionary radio, Bible correspondence
courses, extension theological education, Bi-
ble translations, literature Evangelism. He
also is encouraged by the following: Evan-
gelism in Depth (EID) pioneered by Dr.
R. Kenneth Strachan, the Faith Mission
Movement, the Bible Institute Movement,
Inter-Varsity Fellowship, the Navigators,
Campus Crusade, the Charismatic movement.
He also refers to the fact that today 3,500
non-Caucasian missionaries are serving in
cross-cultural situations. And there are a
number of thriving mission fellowships: The
Interdenominational Foreign Mission Asso-
ciation of the United States of America; The
Christian Missionary Alliance Fellowship of
Asia founded in 1970; The Asian Missionary
Association, 1965; The East-West Center for
Missionary Research and Development, 1975,
whose purpose is to train 10,000 Asian mis-
sionaries by the year 2000; The Chinese Con-
gress on World Evangelization, 1976; The
Evangelical Fellowship of India which spon-
sored the All-India Congress on Mission and
Evangelization. Similar groups in West Af-
rica and Latin America have organized for
missionary effort in those sections of the
world.

Many questions are raised by the author
about the pros and cons of the Crusades;
about the difficulties of missionary work
among Muslims; about the impact of mis-
sionary work on China, India, Japan, et al;
about what missionaries did that was right
and wrong; about the causes for the amaz-
ing growth of Christianity in Africa; and
about the prospect for missions today.

While he poses problems for missions to-
day, he is encouraged by the spiritual re-
newal taking place in home churches, an
increasing awareness of world problems, a
renewed interest in evangelism, a concern
for church growth, guided tours of the mis-
sion fields, the demand for missiology as a
respectable discipline in theological educa-
tion, the present interest in religion, the
wide distribution of the Scriptures, the pres-

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

198

ent generation of student interest in mis-
sions, and world wide communication
through radio and TV.

The author writes from a free Church
tradition and does not attempt to deal in
depth and extent with missions in the old
line denominations. He does not attempt to
enter into the theology of missionary mo-
tivation and objectives. He has written a
very good book which will certainly help to
give committed Christians a much-needed
knowledge of the world mission of Chris-
tianity. He has succeeded in giving us a
“concise” story of “the Christian world mis-
sion.”

Elmer G. Homrighausen

Celebrating the Discipline : The

Path to Spiritual Growth , by Richard
J. Foster. New York: Harper & Row,
San Francisco, CA, 1978. Pp. 179.
$ 7 - 95 -

Dr. Foster has written a timely, useful,
comprehensive, well-organized and scholarly
book on spiritual disciplines. As D. Elton
Trueblood writes in the Foreword, “There
are many books concerned with the inner
life, but there are not many that combine
real orginality with intellectual integrity.”
This combination is found in Foster’s book.

But how can disciplines be celebrated?
After all, disciplines are rules and it is difficult
if not impossible to sing about regulations!
Foster maintains that when disciplines are
turned into law they lead to death. On the
contrary, when disciplines are seen as ways
that lead to life, they can be regarded as
gifts of God. “The spiritual disciplines are
doors to liberation.”

Foster believes that “superficiality is the
curse of our age. The doctrine of instant sat-
isfaction is a primary spiritual problem. The
desperate need today is not for a greater
number of intelligent people, or gifted peo-
ple, but for deep people.”

He also believes that disciplines are not
for spiritual giants which are beyond the
reach of ordinary people. God intends the
fullness of life for “people who have jobs,
who care for children, who must wash dishes
and mow lawns.”

The contents of Foster’s book are formu-
lated around three disciplines: The Inward

Disciplines (meditation, prayer, fasting,
study); The Outward Disciplines (simplic-
ity, solitude, submission, service); The Cor-
porate Disciplines (confession, worship,
guidance, celebration).

The reader will soon sense that Foster not
only uses Scripture in his discussion of disci-
plines, but the classics and a good measure
of material from secular sources.

In his discussion of meditation, he quotes
Merton, “True contemplation is not a psy-
chological trick but a theological grace.”
And he discusses meditation in light of its
widespread use in our time. While he grants
that meditation does involve detachment,
in the Christian sense it also involves at-
tachment. He is aware of the threat of med-
itation because it calls us to enter into the
living presence of God for ourselves. And
most people have never been taught how to
meditate. He writes of the different forms of
meditation and presents some specific ex-
ercises for meaningful meditation. Medita-
tion, says Foster, is closely associated with
solitude (on which he writes a chapter).
And it is not a single act, but it is a way of
life.

Perhaps Foster’s chapters on fasting, study,
simplicity, and solitude will be appreciated
most by Protestant readers. About fasting,
John Wesley wrote that “some have exalted
religious fasting beyond all Scripture and
reason; and others have utterly disregarded
it.” Foster writes about fasting in the Bible,
in the life and teachings of Jesus, in the
spiritual history of Christianity. Fasting for
him is not only the abstinence from food, but
the ascetic practice of living simply. How-
ever, physical fasting can “bring break-
throughs in the spiritual realm, that could
never be had in any other way. It is a means
of God’s grace and blessing that should not
be neglected any longer.”

It is encouraging to find a writer on spir-
ituality emphasizing the discipline of ordered
and hard study as a means of growth into
the full stature of life in Christ. Often, theo-
logical and/or Biblical study are regarded as
separate from the cultivation of the spirit.

In his Foreword, Trueblood singles out
the chapter on “simplicity” as worthy of
special mention; he likes Foster’s idea that
simplicity goes beyond the adoption of “plain
garb.” “Hang the fashions. Buy only what
you need,” writes Foster. Trueblood adds,
“Here is a radical proposal which, if widely

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

199

adopted, would be immensely liberating to
people who are the victims of the advertisers,
particularly those on television. A genuine
cultural revolution would ensure if consid-
erable numbers were to obey the trenchant
command, De-accumulate.” Amen!

This book is a welcome guide to the dis-
ciplines which beckon us to “the Himalayas
of the Spirit.”

Elmer G. Homrighausen

Sacred Art in a Secular Century, by
Horton & Hugh Davies. The Liturgical
Press, Collegeville, Minn., 1978. Pp. 106.

Under joint authorship (father and son)
this book fulfills in all respects the purpose
for which it was intended and the need it
was designed to meet. “This handsome vol-
ume,” states the book jacket, “was written
with the purpose of aiding us to visualize
and appreciate paintings, etchings, and sculp-
tures done in our century, works which
have given a rebirth to religious symbolism
in art. Brief, but comprehensive, the volume
examines the impact of twenty-four artists,
including Chagall, Rouault, Nolde, Epstein,
Lipchitz, Rothko, Moore, Bacon, Dali, Koll-
witz, Barlach, Spencer, Picasso, and Richier.”
The authors, Horton Davies, whose five-vol-
ume series on Worship and Theology in Eng-
land (Princeton University Press) established
his reputation internationally as a research
historian and liturgical scholar, and his son,
Hugh, director of the University Gallery,
University of Massachusetts/Amherst, have
produced a definitive piece of artistic work
for which they were equipped aesthetically
and academically in a superior way.

In an age when traditional symbols are
falling into disuse and are being replaced
by pale substitutes, the authors address them-
selves to two basic questions: (i) Is it pos-
sible to recover an appreciation of the power
and meaning of traditional religious sym-
bols? And (ii), can attempts be made to
establish new patterns of religious symbols
or new meanings for old symbols that will
communicate immediately to moderns? (p.
3). There follow four discussions: an intro-
ductory survey of trends among symbolic
interpretations and suggested accountings of
them, the clusters of schools of artistic ex-

pression, and the perspectives which facilitate
our understanding of their meaning; (1)
Old Symbols Renewed and Revised; (2) Old
Symbols Syncretized or Secularized; (3) New
Symbols and Emphases; and (4) A New
Religious Spirit and Its Signs. Through well
annotated footnotes, a selected bibliography,
and the assistance of an abundance of prints
and illustrations, even the amateur student
of art and symbolism can find his/her way
appreciatively in these chapters.

This is a book to refer to again and again
for information, but more than this, it indi-
cates that an era of art and symbolism has
come sufficiently of age and that the time is
opportune for mature reflection upon it. The
Davieses have not only initiated it, but have
set a high standard for others to profit by
and emulate.

Donald Macleod

Unfinished Easter : Sermons on the
Ministry, by David H. C. Read. Harper
& Row, Publishers, San Francisco,
CA, 1978. Pp. 132. $4.95.

Those of us who have learned to expect
only the first-rate in the writings of David
H. C. Read will not be disappointed in this
latest collection of sermons from his pulpit
and pen. Since 1956, Dr. Read has been
senior minister at the Madison Avenue Pres-
byterian Church in New York City, having
come to America from the position of chap-
lain to students at the University of Edin-
burgh. Through the National Radio Pulpit,
his publications (thirteen books) and the
weekly witness of his own pulpit, he is gen-
erally regarded today as one of the most
respected voices in the ministry of the United
Presbyterian Church, USA. One of his more
obvious competencies is to be able to interest
a sophisticated congregation and at the same
time to be appreciated and understood by
common people.

Here, in this slim volume, are eighteen
short sermons from his National Radio Pulpit
program. What makes them distinctive, apart
from their religious and literary substance, is
their focus upon the ministry — not profes-
sionally — and “what does the preacher really
believe when not in the pulpit doing his
job?” (Preface). Dr. Read poses questions and
then answers them from the perspective of

200

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

his own life, beliefs, and experience. Some
of these questions are: What Makes Me a Be-
liever? I’m Praying for You — So What? Who
Could Be Against Jesus? Do We Have to
Be Zealous? These chapters read like devo-
tionals and are equally inspiring.

No one can decipher or explain another
preacher’s pulpit effectiveness; yet there are
certain characteristics about Dr. Read’s ser-
monic witness which provide at least a partial
answer. Apart from his basic sense of the
claim of the Gospel, he is positive about
preaching. Can we imagine ever his “chuck-
ing” the pulpit for sitting cross-legged on a
rug and listing the pluses and minuses of his
personal counteractions to and from others?
He has, moreover, a sober sensitivity to the
problems Christianity poses and which quasi-
Christianity discards as unreal or irrelevant.
Again and again he takes certain concepts
or terms and rescues them from minimal
meanings and helps us to see them in their
Christian connotation. Often through merely
a simple aside and in contemporary terms he
shows a fresh and perceptive grasp of the
human problem. No one should model his
or her preaching ministry after another or
teach others to do so. Nevertheless preachers
will read these chapters to their own per-
sonal edification and profit.

Donald Macleod

Living in a New Age, by Laurence
H. Stookey, C.S.S. Publishing Co.,
Lima, O., 1977. Pp. no. $3.25.

This is a series of nine sermons for Easter-
tide, based upon the lections for Year B in
the United Methodist Alternate Lectionary.
The author, Laurence Stookey, is associate
professor of Preaching and Worship at Wes-
ley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C.
The title is suggested by the general theme
of Easter and the sermons are related to the
idea of that new age which God through his
redemptive work in Christ has achieved. The
Introduction discusses the structure of the
lectionary for this particular season and in-
cludes some background observations upon
the pericopes and the biblical writer. The
first sermon is an innovative and creative
presentation intended for Easter Eve or a
Vigil. The rest are based largely upon the
First Epistle of John and are followed indi-

vidually at the end by a reflective commen-
tary. Professor Stookey is generally a clear
and plain writer, although the line of thought
in some of these sermons could be more
finely honed. Nevertheless, these chapters
represent good background thinking and
evidences of a clear understanding of the
nature and purpose of preaching within a
liturgical context.

Donald Macleod

A Princeton Companion, by Alex-
ander Leitch. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, N.J., 1978. Pp. 559.
$15.00.

This book is “the work of many hands.”
From the perspectives of interesting sub-
stance, historical and biographical matters,
and even technical craftsmanship, it is an
example of editorial excellence. The editor
and compiler, Alexander Leitch, served
Princeton University in a series of responsible
capacities: a member of the Class of 1924 he
spent forty-two years in the employ of his
alma mater under Presidents Hibben, Dodds,
and Goheen. As an officer of the administra-
tion the sequence of his roles included thirty
years as Secretary of the University. His
grasp of campus affairs and his acquaintance
with a host of world figures and significant
campus personalities equipped him adequately
to select the names and subjects for this en-
cyclopedia of the varied items and annals of
the history of one of the nation’s great uni-
versities.

Anyone who has studied at Princeton or
has had an acquaintance with the Princeton
community will find this volume a real fasci-
nation to read and explore. Whether it be a
biographical sketch of a “name” scholar or
scientist, the development of an academic de-
partment, the story of a campus building or
quadrangle, the fortunes of athletic teams or
sports, the magnificent Gothic chapel, or the
career of the eating clubs, here is interesting
reading for everyone and a treasure of liter-
ary quality commensurate with the reputa-
tion of the school it celebrates.

Donald Macleod

Church Music and the Christian
Faith, by Erik Routley. Agape, Carol

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

201

Stream, 111 , 1978. Pp. 153. $3.95 (paper).

Erik Routley, formerly a minister in Edin-
burgh, Scotland, and lecturer and Chaplain
of Mansfield College, Oxford, and at present
a member of the faculty of Westminster
Choir College, is one of today’s best-known
figures in the field of church music. He is
also a theologian, seeking to provide insights
into the relationship between theology and
church music. What he offers in this new
book echoes theoretical and practical matters
from his earlier Church Music and Theology
(SCM Press, 1959) — updated, to be sure, but
in essence the same arguments. It seems as if
he hopes, by restating his case, someone will
finally listen. I should hope the same. Erik
Routley deserves to be listened to!

The problem to which Dr. Routley ad-
dresses himself is finding a theological basis
for judging and using church music — an
issue which must be dealt with apart from
the “establishment” attitudes of patronizing
indifference or repressive dogmatism. “What
theology ought to be able to achieve,” writes
Dr. Routley, “is not so much the establishing
of laws [after the manner of the Old Testa-
ment] as the removing of taboos, embarrass-
ments, and barriers to decent conversation.
This is what the New Testament is about.”
From a New Testament gospel of grace, he
invokes a principle of restraint in church mu-
sic. Beauty, he suggests, is a by-product of
this, and is not to be sought after self-con-
sciously (as in much music of the Romantic
genre). Johann Sebastian Bach serves as Dr.
Routley’s model of self-restraint and self-re-
nunciation.

The book is full of musical illustrations—
enough so, that the reader will want to be
near a piano to discover what’s “good” and
what’s “bad” about the examples; in which
instances “breaking” certain musical “laws”
(e.g., no parallel fifths or octaves) can pro-
duce “ugly” music, and in which passages
such deviations from these “laws” can be
appropriate and “right.” The examples serve
well to raise the reader’s musical conscious-
ness. And Dr. Routley’s incisive, lively, and
often witty and down-to-earth commentary
further underscores his arguments: (“. . .
How often a reviewer finds himself hard put
to devise a way of saying without offense,
‘This new anthem is blameless but scream-
ingly dull.’ ”)

Dr. Routley attacks, with solid theological

and aesthetical ammunition, many practices
of church musicians today. Take, for example,
the “tendency to begin in one key and end in
another, not infrequently in the key a tone
higher.” (I once heard an organist play
“Christ of the Upward Way,” raising each
of the four verses by a half-step!) Dr. Rout-
ley’s comment: “I have heard organists do
this . . . , blissfully ignored that the source
of their inspiration is cafeteria-Muzak.”

As an example of other customs “which
have precious little authority or precedent
and about which questions are never asked,”
Dr. Routley discusses the singing of “Amen”
at the end of all hymns. This was appropriate,
he points out, to ancient Ambrosian hymns
ending with a trinitarian doxology (the
“Amen” signifying a “This we believe!”
voiced by orthodox Christians). However:

Singing amen after post-Reformation
hymns was unknown before about 1850.
There is no older precedent for it, it was
in any case an error, and those who initi-
ated it have long repented of it. It is an
excellent example of a custom which peo-
ple still jealously guard in America, any
criticism of which arouses great indigna-
tion, and any argument against which is
disregarded.

Worshippers who are appalled by the noisy
chatter which usually precedes the service
will take delight in Dr. Routley’s advice on
that matter:

The horror of any kind of silence is a
frequent symptom in Britain; in some
American circles it is a disease in an ad-
vanced stage. Choirs and clergy chatter
about everything under the sun until sec-
onds before the service, and naturally
congregations follow their example. It is
considered unneighborly not to chatter.
The truth that it is at some seasons un-
neighborly to chatter is always overlooked.
In extreme cases there is only one remedy.
This is to ask the organist to collaborate by
keeping the instrument silent altogether
before the introit or the first hymn; then
to instruct the choir, after the vestry
prayer, to remain totally silent until they
open their mouths in song; then for the
clergy to take on themselves a two-minute
Trappist vow — and only when everybody
has got used to silence (the removal of the
organ music for a while is the best way of

202

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

shutting up the gossipers; they soon feel
out of place) should the pre-service volun-
tary be restored.

Should hymns be sung in harmony or
unison? What about processionals? Alterna-
tives to the pipe organ (piano, guitar, elec-
tronic organ [“. . . an instrument appropri-
ate to the support of whatever hymns they
sing in hell”])? These and many other prac-
tical and theoretical matters are faced head
on by Dr. Routley — as they should be by all
who are concerned with music in the church.
Church Music and the Christian Faith is a
remarkably fine book. It should be read by
every pastor, choir director, organist, singer
and non-singer. Everyone will not agree with
all of Dr. Routley’s points, but at least, per-
haps, they will begin to do some long over-
due thinking about theology and music.

G. R. Jacks

Our Own Hymnboo/{, by C. H. Spur-
geon. Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena,
Tex., 1975. Pp. 264. $3.25 (paper).

This facsimile reprinting of the hymnal
compiled in 1866 by Charles H. Spurgeon
and used during his fruitful ministry at Lon-
don’s Metropolitan Tabernacle is to be noted
by students of hymnology and the history of
preaching and worship. A compendium of
1,060 hymns and metrical psalms, the collec-
tion draws upon four centuries of British and
American hymnody and serves as a ready
gauge of theological emphases in worship in
the evangelical tradition of the nineteenth
century. Although the majority of Spurgeon’s
selections are of eighteenth-century origin,
there is a liberal sprinkling of “contemporary
hymns” of the Victorian era, as well as a
number of Spurgeon’s own poems.

Spurgeon published works of earlier au-
thors in relatively unaltered form, although
occasionally he omitted one or more of their
original stanzas. While most of these texts
have passed out of common usage, this vol-
ume constitutes an accessible resource for
those who wish to compare modern editions
of many hymn texts with their original
forms. Spurgeon’s comprehensive index of
first lines of stanzas commends this collection
to preachers and others who find occasion to
quote fragments of hymns. Useful as well

are Spurgeon’s detailed topical index and
doctrinally-arranged table of contents.

In a time of liturgical renewal and em-
phasis upon the heritage of Christian wor-
ship, readily affordable reprintings of sig-
nificant historical material are to be wel-
comed. This little book should find a secure
place in the library of anyone for whom the
evolution of congregational praise holds pro-
fessional or aesthetic interest.

R. David Hoffelt

Henry Ward Beecher: Spokesman for
a Middle-Class America , by Clifford
E. Clark, Jr. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, 111 ., 1978. Pp. 288. $12.95.

In this thorough and balanced account,
Clark presents a sensitive and engaging por-
trait of the popular preacher who embodied
as much as anyone else the aspirations and
ambivalences of an increasingly urban Amer-
ica in the middle decades of the nineteenth
century. Clark relates the development of
specific themes in Beecher’s preaching and
writing over the span of a half-century to
his calculated response to such challenges as
sectionalism and industrialization. In so do-
ing, he traces Beecher’s gradual shift from
enterprising evangelicalism to a romantic
Christianity of morality and responsible in-
dividualism in a pluralistic social context.
Regarding Beecher’s own story as an index
of cultural values of the Victorian era, Clark
attributes Beecher’s popularity to his ability
to arouse the sympathies and assuage the
anxieties of his generation with a message
of hope, self-improvement, and purposeful
identity.

Emphasizing the unevenness and incon-
sistency of Beecher’s theological views, Clark
writes of the divergences and affinities of
Beecher’s thought with that of other promi-
nent churchmen of his time, notably the work
of Horace Bushnell. He makes highly satis-
factory use of Beecher’s correspondence with
other members of his family and of the ef-
fects of Beecher’s public career on his domes-
tic life. Also significant is Clark’s convincing
investigation of the central, though often
overlooked! influence! of personal friendship
and animosity in Beecher’s much-publicized
trial for adultery.

Clark’s sympathetic biography demonstrates

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

203

the close interaction of personal motivation
with Beecher’s public stance, although the
reader frequently may wish for a more inti-
mate treatment of Beecher’s complex per-
sonality than is presented. Further, if one
might take exception to the degree of Beech-
er’s importance in social reform which Clark
implies, it may be due to a lingering suspi-
cion that Beecher’s influence derived as much
from the manner of his oratory as from the
positions he espoused. A more systematic
analysis of the operational effect of Beecher’s

preaching and lecturing would enhance
Clark’s comprehensive summary of Beecher’s
thematic content and ideological tendencies.

Still, it is difficult to disagree with Clark’s
insights into Beecher’s personality and as-
sessment of his unparalleled success as a
spokesman for the spirit of an age more
perplexed than it liked to admit. The study
rests on solid scholarship and commends it-
self as interpretive biography which is no
less enjoyable than it is enlightening.

R. David Hoffelt

BOOK NOTES

by Donald Macleod

ALLPORT, Gordon W., Waiting
for the Lord (33 Meditations on God
and Man). Macmillan Pub. Co., Inc.,
New York, N.Y., 1978. Pp. 123. $5.95.

With an Introduction by Peter A. Bertocci,
this volume provides us with thirty-three
concise and thoughtful meditations by Gor-
don W. Allport of Harvard whom Richard
I. Evans describes as a writer in the areas of
psychology of personality and social psychol-
ogy whose works practicing clinical psychol-
ogists found “second only to Freud’s in day-
to-day usefulness.”

Any morning, prior to the nine o’clock
bell, a small group of young people, faculty
members, and community folk may be seen
entering Appleton Chapel by Harvard Yard
for a fifteen minute period of worship and
reflection. Twice a year for twenty-eight years
Gordon Allport was responsible for leader-
ship of the service. In his introductory re-
marks, Peter Bertocci (Browne Professor of
Philosophy at Boston University) writes:
“Quiet, unobtrusive, with a goading sense
of responsibility for his own privileges and
for the underprivileged, Allport found deep
satisfaction in the life of the worshipping
community” (p. xvii).

Biblically based and person centered, these
talks make worthwhile reading. Many sen-
tences are as perceptive as they are quotable:
“A sensitive intelligence is satisfied only if
it can operate in some bigger frame of refer-
ence than that which it provides for itself”
(p. 5); “Hope can be transvalued into a
Christian virtue, provided it loses its self-
centered reference” (p. 20); “How, in a uni-
versity, does one obey the First Command-
ment? Figuratively as well as literally start
the day at 8:45 with the Whole and not
merely at 9 o’clock with the part” (p. 87);
“In our modern educational setting we spend
most of our time with the characteristic what
questions, not with the ultimate what for
questions” (p. 106). Always a student of the
Bible, he read it, as he said, for insights not
only into the what of human behavior but

into the why of God’s purpose for humanity.
Western culture, he felt, persists in separat-
ing these two questions that belong “natural-
ly together.”

Most preachers will find congenial thought
sequences in these pages and not a few ideas
by which to stretch their minds.

BURKE, John, Gospel Power. Alba
House, New York, N.Y., 1978. Pp. 117.
$ 4 - 95 -

This book adds another title to a growing
list of books on preaching by leading think-
ers in the Roman Catholic Church. Fr. Burke,
who serves as Executive Director of the Word
of God Institute in Washington, D.C., comes
to us with credentials above average in qual-
ity and quantity. With a background of
study and practice in communications (as
an associate director with NBC), in drama
(he has a Master’s degree in the field), and
in theology (a doctorate in Sacred Theology),
he is well fitted to apply various critical
criteria to contemporary preaching. This he
does competently in the opening pages of
his discussion of “Gospel Power” and our
vocation as preachers (pp. ix-xiv). The body
of the book is taken up with three kinds of
preaching (evangelization, catechesis, and
didascalia) and concludes with a short treat-
ment of the liturgical homily. Throughout
these chapters Fr. Burke’s writing is sustained
by a good preliminary definition of preach-
ing and a high estimate of its nature and
objective. His method is marked by an effort
to teach homiletical theory descriptively rath-
er than didactically. His thinking is both
biblically and theologically oriented and, al-
though many truths and concepts he urges
have been common to Protestant preaching
for centuries, yet all of us appreciate his
reiterating them so definitively. His perspec-
tive on the prerogatives of witness and procla-
mation, however, could benefit from some
straightening: it is because there was origi-
nally a Gospel that we have the Church and

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

205

to that Gospel the Church must ever be in
submission and under its judgment and
direction.

COLQUHOUN, Frank, Christ’s Am-
bassadors. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1979. Pp. 93. $2.50.

This small volume is a reprint of an earlier
edition (1965) in the Canterbury Books
series by the former editor of “The Church-
man” (British). Colquhoun, whose earlier
books include the very useful Parish Prayers
and Contemporary Parish Prayers (Hodder
& Stoughton), is presently Canon Residen-
tiary and Vice-Dean of Norwich Cathedral,
England. In the course of five chapters he
makes a strong case for the preacher’s voca-
tion and his responsibility in the pulpit for
competent biblical exposition. Although some
may question what seems to be an undue tra-
ditionalism in his position, yet any of us
cannot help sensing his understanding of the
deeply personal character of preaching, its
inseparability from God’s act of grace in
history, and its sacramental role in the
Church.

CRUM, Milton, Jr., Manual on
Preaching. Judson Press, Valley Forge,
Pa., 1977. Pp. 189. $8.95.

This is not just another book about preach-
ing. It is one of the more scholarly and aca-
demically respectable monographs on preach-
ing to appear in several decades. Professor
Crum, who for the past dozen years has
taught homiletics at the Protestant Episcopal
Seminary in Virginia, has given us a manual
on the discipline of sermon development
which deserves careful exploration. His aim
is “to assist preachers in actually doing
preaching” (p. 10) and this he acknowledges
cannot be done without bringing together
the HOW and the WHY of preaching the
Good News.

The book is built around his own method
and he testifies that “this method works.” He
spells out (p. 16) the character of his method
under three foci: the Bible, human life (your
own and the congregation’s at the deeper
level of behavior), and the sermon as story.

There follow seven cogent chapters which
embrace the process of sermon creation, the
hermeneutical task, the story product, etc.
Among these, several discussions are origi-
nal and fresh: the dynamics of the sermon
and the liturgical context of preaching. This
book is the product of wide and varied
reading in a number of allied fields, including
history, theology, and human behaviorism,
with up to date references to a host of
contemporary thinkers and scholars, such as
Funk, Ramm, McLuhan, Wink, and many
others. All teachers of preaching will discover
in Crum’s chapters a refresher course in the
fine art of preaching.

GLASSE, James D., The Art of
Spiritual Sna 1 {ehandling and Other
Sermons. Abingdon Press, Nashville,
Tenn., 1979. Pp. 112. $3.95.

Your reviewer came to this book with
more than usual interest because wherever
and whenever he preached in any pulpit the
Sunday after Dr. Glasse was the guest, the
people were high in their praises of “the
man from Lancaster.” Although we have
never met, yet the name of the President of
Lancaster Theological Seminary is securely in
the column of effective preachers.

This slim paperback contains sermons
given at the preaching services at the Chau-
tauqua Institution in the summer of 1976.
Along with the eight sermons, the author
has included an interesting introduction and
an epilogue consisting of personal observa-
tions on preaching and the preacher. Dr.
Glasse is a topical preacher with a definite
biblical orientation and an obviously deep
understanding of the human problem. The
whole world of church administration, parish
concerns, student queries, and contemporary
domestic give-and-take are his province. Yet,
as he unravels an issue, it is from the per-
spective of the gospel of the New Testament
that he begins his solution. This is a good
book for a preacher to read on a rainy
Sunday afternoon.

GWYNNE, Walker, The Christian
Tear. Longmans, Green, & Co., New
York, N.Y., 1917. (Reprinted by Grand

206

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

River Books, Detroit, Mich., 1971). Pp.

143. $11.00.

This is an old book, yet its quality merited
a reprint for contemporary accessibility. The
scarcity of monographs on the Christian Year
prompted the author at that time to devour
Hooker, Dowden, Staley, Duchesne, and
Seabury and to produce a compact, factually
dependable, and historically and biblically
oriented accounting of the origins, signifi-
cance, and values of the church calendar. In
the course of twenty-three brief chapters, Dr.
Gwynne encapsulates cogently the facts,
moods, and liturgical thrust of each festival
and provides some clear guidelines which
can serve to regularize many matters now
victimized by confusion.

HARRIS, Irving, The Breeze of the
Spirit. The Seabury Press, New York,
N.Y., 1978. Pp. 190. $8.95.

The influence of the personal ministry of
Samuel M. Shoemaker and the emergence of
the Faith-at-Work movement are the con-
comitant themes of this book. Few persons
possessed the qualifications to write this
story as had Irving Harris whose identifica-
tion with Shoemaker’s varied ministries lent
a first-time-ness to this book which otherwise
would not have been possible. In the course
of nineteen chapters, Harris sketches the
depth and breadth of Shoemaker’s great hu-
manity, his love of people, the vast network
of his personal connections (all of which
were extensions of his ministry), and the
liveliness of the Gospel which nourished
him and through him nourished others.
Anyone who is eager to see the Christian faith
as a moving and redeeming drama in the
world of common men and women will read
this book with much satisfaction.

HORNE, Chevis F., Being Christian
in Our Town. Broadman Press, Nash-
ville, Term., 1978. Pp. 138. $3.50.

Chevis Horne is beginning his thirty-first
year as minister at the First Baptist Church,
Martinsville, Va. In an age when so many
pastors flit from bloom to bloom or, as a

former dean at Princeton once said, “hurry
to exchange one set of headaches for an-
other,” it is salutory to find a member of the
clergy spending a lifetime in the same parish.
In his dedication of this new book of ser-
mons, Dr. Horne refers to his own congre-
gation as “exceptionally mature, loving, ac-
cepting, and supportive people.” In being
so, these people at the same time have
called forth from their minister a strong
pulpit witness of which these sermons are
ample proof.

Here are fifteen sermons in which Dr.
Horne shows himself as a good writer whose
style is crisp and clean and frequently punc-
tuated with sentences that are quotable. He
is a teacher in the pulpit. His illustrations
are drawn from the Bible, literature, and
everyday events, but are never hackneyed or
overdrawn. In the Foreword, David H. C.
Read writes: “It is refreshing to have these
sermons issued for what they are without
apology — the weekly exposition of the word
by a devoted and competent workman.”

KENIN, Richard & WINTLE, Jus-
tin, The Dictionary of Biographical
Quotation. Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, N.Y., 1978. Pp. 860. $25.00.

Two sentences describe this unique en-
cyclopedia: “The most complete dictionary
we are ever likely to have of WHO SAID
WHAT ABOUT WHOM.” “A book to ex-
plore, to quote aloud from, to consult (and
to browse through) in search of the human
essence of virtually every man and woman
who has left a name, for good or ill, in the
annals of Britain and America.” This mas-
sive collection (over 1,000 names) of remarks
made by and about distinguished persons
represents the fruits of a research team
which made their final selections from a
mountain of biographical quotations. People
from all walks of life are included, prepon-
derantly British because she is older but
from the twentieth century there are more
Americans. The choices of comments are
well balanced so that a fair number of one’s
admirers appear side by side with one’s
detractors. All of us are aware, of course,
that in any estimate of another, the writer
reveals something of himself or herself. It is
fascinating simply to select persons of a well

THE PRINCET ON SEMINARY BULLETIN

207

known literary, political, or scientific repu-
tation and note how the editors “sought the
magic that comes when insight and expres-
sion are married into a new amalgam of
content and form” (p. xvii). This book is a
presentation volume of unique character and
lasting interest.

KNUDSEN, Raymond B., Develop-
ing Dynamic Stewardship. Abingdon
Press, Nashville, Tenn., 1978. Pp. 127.
$ 3 - 95 -

With the current rash of books on evan-
gelism, some people may lose sight of the
fact that stewardship is the ethical extension
of the commitment the former involves and
demands. The author of this collection of
fifteen sermons is fully aware of this pos-
sibility and hence he claims that “total com-
mitment of one’s self completely to Christ —
spiritually, financially, and socially — is es-
sential for a strong, enduring personal faith
as well as for a giving church today.” Dr.
Knudsen, who is president of the Counselor
Association and writer of the widely syndi-
cated column, “The Counselor,” writes with
zeal and an up-to-date-ness that is refreshing.
Accompanied by a store of everyday refer-
ences and allusions his method is to talk
to us while he explores our religious diseases
and indicates routes towards cures. Budget
Sundays can be a nightmare (especially after
5-10 years in the same pulpit). Author Knud-
sen shows us how exciting our appeal can be
when the New Testament concept of stew-
ardship is related to the whole of life.

RAINES, Robert A., Going Home.
Harper & Row, Publishers, San Fran-
cisco, CA, 1979. Pp. 145. $6.95.

From the point of view of literary style,
classical allusions, and precise composition
the author of this book deserves very high
marks. The sub-title elaborates upon the
main title: Going Home comprises “a per-
sonal story of self-discovery, a journey from
despair to hope.” The saga unfolds in five
chapters: Apprehended; Leaving Home;

Living in Tents; Being Reborn; and Going
Home. As a story it is very readable and as

drama it spells out more fully than the
average newspaper does the parallel plots of
life in the every day.

There are many things about this book
that are puzzling and none of them is more
enigmatic than the nagging question: why
was it written? If it were intended for parish
ministers, we are sure none would find in
such a pitiable and pitiful tale any urging to
“go and do likewise” or to tell others to do
so. Maybe it was intended as an elegant
rationalization of a post-parish, post-pulpit,
post-domestic, post-everything situation. But
neither is this useful to us because we are
not shown how a selfish self was re-born
into a suffering servant; rather we are told
how to exchange one set of circumstances for
another and call it fulfillment. The basic
issue here is very, very old. Paul analyzed it
in his Letter to the Romans (ca. A.D. 57)
and John Bunyan dramatized it in Pilgrim's
Progress (A.D. 1678). “Despair” and “hope”
are not pieces in a game in which “fulfill-
ment” means getting what you want regard-
less of who may be hurt. The soap opera
mentality may luxuriate on a straw mat, but
it says No to self only when it faces up to a
Calvary. Maybe this book unthinkingly un-
derscores this fact.

RAWLINS, C. L., Index Volume :
The Daily Study Bible, by William
Barclay. Westminster Press, Philadel-
phia, Pa., 1978. Pp. 213. $3.75.

Sooner or later someone would put us in
his or her debt by compiling a subject-index
for Dr. Barclay’s seventeen-volume Daily
Study Bible. The publishing manager of the
St. Andrew Press, Edinburgh, Mr. C. L.
Rawlins, has fulfilled our common need and
in honor of the author (Dr. Barclay died
before the Index was published or a prom-
ised Foreword written) has presented the
Index as a memorial to “this great man,
undoubtedly one of the foremost communi-
cators of the Christian faith of the century”
(p. ix). There are six indexes here: Old
Testament, New Testament, Subjects and
Places, Personal Names, Foreign Words and
Phrases, and Ancient Writings.

Rawlins, in his Introduction, describes the
enormous output of the late Glasgow pro-
fessor (more than sixty books in his life-

208

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

time), singling out particularly The Daily
Study Bible which he prefers to describe as
“a daily study of the Bible.” This seventeen-
volume series is characterized as “informa-
tive, devotional, and relevant” (p. vi). The
method is not that of the technical com-
mentator, although behind it lies “a master-
ful comprehension of biblical learning.” It is
the work of one in whose hands “the world
of the New Testament comes vibrantly alive”
and through whose explorations “the real
meaning and present-day reality of every
passage” are made clear. Barclay’s aim is not
“clinical precision,” but through his writings
he seeks to work “a powerful encounter”
between humanity and “an infectious love
for Christ.” His comprehensive grasp of
scripture and his ability to illustrate its mes-
sage through classical and homely anecdotes
and historical incidents are now made more
fully available by this handy index.

TYLER, Edward, Prayers in Cele-
bration of the Turning Year. Abingdon
Press, Nashville, Tenn., 1978. Pp. 96.
$ 5 - 95 -

Edward Tyler lives in Vermont in an old
house where he and his artist wife collaborate
in writing, designing, and printing their own
books. A graduate of Bates College and Yale
Divinity School, Tyler has served as chaplain
at the University of Vermont and as minister
of local churches. Here, in this slim volume,
he gives us a collection of prayers for both
the natural and festival seasons of the year.
Written in exciting imagery and with a deep
sense of human care, these prayers are gems
of devotion and will be used widely by
leaders of worship for group meetings with-
in and beyond formal church exercises.

WALLIS, Charles L. (ed.), The Min-
isters Manual. (1979 Edition). Harper
& Row, Publishers, San Francisco,
CA, 1979. Pp. 280. $7.95.

Continuing Doran’s tradition of fifty-four
years, Charles L. Wallis gives us his tenth
edition of what is recognized as one of the
most healthy examples of pulpit and worship
aids published in America. This volume,
comprising a wide variety of sources, repre-
sents the best thoughts of many religious
leaders and preachers of the contemporary
scene. The editor, who is also editor of Pulpit
Digest, combines an unusual competence in
seeking out materials of real substance with
an apparatus of indexes which makes for
ready reference. This is not a book for those
who want others to do their thinking for
them; it is an auxiliary repository out of
which items may be drawn to make one’s
original ideas more palatable and interesting.

WATERS, Moir A.J., Wings of
Song. 1978. Pp. 60. (Printed privately.
Inquire to Rev. M.A.J. Waters, 383
Wharncliffe Road, London, Ont., Can-
ada N6G 1E4).

Among Canadian hymn writers, the Rev.
Moir A.J. Waters has established his repu-
tation in two collections, Ma\e a Joyful
Noise! and the more recent, Wings of Song.
In the latter we have thirty new hymns,
each of which is prefaced by a unique intro-
ductory page indicating the genesis of the
poem and the significance of its message.
These hymns were inspired by various devo-
tional and scriptural experiences and more
than one was written to be used on a particu-
lar occasion or to mark a congregational
anniversary or event. All of us expect Dr.
Waters to continue his productivity. One
would wish, however, for him to fill out the
great lack in our Protestant hymnody of
meaningful hymns in the category of Holy
Spirit, Sacraments (Baptism and Lord’s Sup-
per), Adoration, Stewardship, and national
holidays. We have re-established many of
our Christian festivals and emphases, but we
feel impoverished when we attempt to ex-
press them in song.

THE PRINCETON SEMINARY BULLETIN

209

ADDRESSES OF PUBLISHERS

Abingdon Press, 201 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Agape, Carol Stream, Illinois 60187

Alba House, Division of the Society of St. Paul, Staten Island, New York 10314
Augsburg Publishing House, 426 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Baker Book House, 1019 Wealthy Street, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506
Broadman Press, 127 Ninth Avenue North, Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Cambridge University Press, 32 East 57th Street, New York, New York 10022
C.S.S. Publishing Company, 628 South Main Street, Lima, Ohio 45804
Doubleday & Company, 501 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 225 Jefferson Street, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan
49502

Friendship Press, Room 753, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 10027
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1700 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 941 11
Harvard University Press, 79 Garden Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 021 14
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana 47401
Judson Press, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19481

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 201 East 50th Street, New York, New York 10022
John Knox Press, 341 Ponce de Leon Avenue, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308
The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321

Longman, Inc., 19 West 44th Street, Suite 1012, New York, New York 10036
The Macmillan Company, 866 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022
Oxford University Press, 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Pilgrim Publications, PO Box 66, Pasadena, Texas 77501
Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Seabury Press, 815 Second Avenue, New York, New York 100 17
The University of Chicago Press, 5801 Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637
University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois 61801

The Westminster Press, Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Yale University Press, 302 Temple Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06520

“I get more pleasure reading Theology Today than
from any other of the seventy to eighty other journals
I take. It is an excellent periodical.”

— Karl Menninger

“One of the most distinguished and consistently help-
ful theological journals on the American scene.”

— Nathan A. Scott

“For my time and money, it stands alone in its field.”

— Ernest Campbell

THEOLOGY TODAY begins its 36th year of publication with a tribute to Editor
Hugh T. Kerr by James I. McCord, “Hail to the Chief!” The editorial marks the
publication of Dr. Kerr’s collection of essays, Our Life in God’s Light. In addition,
the issue contains a wide-ranging group of essays including: Paul Ramsey, “Do
You Know Where Your Children Are?”; Eugene Carson Blake, “God, Morality,
and Politics”; A Symposium on Clinical Pastoral Education with E. Brooks Holi-
field, Joseph Fletcher, Rollin J. Fairbanks, and Seward Hiltner; Richard Unsworth
on “Human Sexuality” and Henry Warner Bowden on Jonestown; Dean Hoge on
“Why are Churches Declining?”; and reviews of works by Jacques Ellul, Jurgen
Moltmann, Hannah Arendt, Avery Dulles, Richard Shaull, Arthur Adams, Mal-
colm Muggeridge, and others. Start your subscription now for $8.50 per year for
four issues.

THEOLOGY TODAY, P.O. Box 29, Princeton, N.J. 08540
Please enter/renew my subscription for:

1 year (4 issues, $8.50) Bill me

2 years (8 issues, $15.00) Check enclosed

Name

Street

City State Zip

Please make check payable to THEOLOGY TODAY in U.S. funds. Special student rate $5.00.
Sample copy and foreign rates available.

(AB — 4/79)

^3

JC

Z

n

w

H

O

z

z

w

w

cr

W

o

oo

-t*

o

PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY